Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill,

Brighton, Hove and Worthing Gas Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Chailey Rural District Council Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Church House (Westminster) Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Corby (Northants) and District Water Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday.

Darlington Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

East Worcestershire Water Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

London Passenger Transport Board Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Maidstone Waterworks Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Manchester Extension Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday.

Southern Railway Bill,

South Metropolitan Gas (No. 1) Bill,

South Metropolitan Gas (No. 2) Bill,

South West Suburban Water Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Stockport Corporation Bill,

Stockport Extension Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed. Taunton Corporation Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday.

Walthamstow Corporation Bill,

Weston-super-Mare Urban District Council Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

INDIA OFFICE (REFORMS DEPARTMENT).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India of what the Reforms Department of the India Office consists; and what is the sum of its salaries?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The Reforms Department of the India Office consists of a few officials temporarily seconded from other duties so that their time may be devoted exclusively to the problems connected with reforms. There are three Assistant Secretaries, one Principal, and four Clerical Officers so seconded. The net cost in salaries involved by the arrangements is rather less than £2,000 per annum.

Sir A. KNOX: Is there any truth in the report that these officials are engaged in drafting a Bill?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (MARKETING ACTS).

Mr. REA (for Mr. CURRY): 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the total number of salaried posts established under schemes framed under the Agricultural Marketing Acts; what is the
total cost involved; and what are the salaries of the chairmen of the Marketing Boards which have been established?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I regret I have not the information necessary to answer the first and second parts of my hon. Friend's question. With regard to the last part, the position is that the schemes now in operation provide that the remuneration, if any, of the board shall be determined by registered producers in annual general meeting. Only one such meeting has so far been held, at which the registered producers of English hops voted their Chairman annual remuneration at the rate of £800.

Mr. REA: If I put a question on the Paper for a later date, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me the number of salaried posts?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, I could not do so. The Minister has no direct connection with the board, as the hon. Member understands.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BOMBAY (GOVERNOR'S LETTER).

Sir A. KNOX: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a recent letter of the Governor of Bombay, in which he addressed the boy scouts of Sind as future citizens of an independent province; and whether he authorised the Governor to forestall the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee and the decision of Parliament?

Sir S. HOARE: My attention has been drawn to the matter, but I am not in possession of the actual text of the letter referred to. The Governor of Bombay was obviously doing no more than refer to the well-known policy of the Government, which is subject, as any policy involving legislation must be, to the approval of Parliament. There is no occasion to attach to his words a meaning which was not and could not have been intended.

Sir A. KNOX: Surely the wording of the letter gave the people to understand that the whole question had been settled. Would it not be desirable that this should be left to the report of the Joint Select
Committee and the decision of Parliament and that people should not be misled?

Sir S. HOARE: The people of Sind take their views from the expressed policy of His Majesty's Government. More than once that policy has been expressed in the past. They are not likely to take it from a letter written to a jamboree of boy scouts.

Sir A. KNOX: Was not that letter published widely in the native Press, and how can these people possibly distinguish between the decision of His Majesty's Government and the decision of Sovereign Parliament?

Sir S. HOARE: I incline to think that they will be better able to distinguish between what matters and what does not than my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the people of India take their knowledge of what happens in this Parliament from the statements of the Governor and the Viceroy? Is it not very unwise that the Viceroy and the Governor should make a statement until after the report of the Joint Select Committee, when we have been told that nothing shall be done until the report is published?

Sir S. HOARE: There is no reason for my hon. Friend's anxiety. The position is quite clear. The position of the Government is well known, and this letter adds nothing to and detracts nothing from the policy of the Government.

Sir A. KNOX: Has not the argument been thrown out in favour of the Indian policy of the Government that Indians have been led to expect certain things and that we cannot go back?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can draw what conclusions he likes. The position is as I have stated it.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is not the policy of the Government liable to be modified by the report of the Joint Select Committee?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had followed my answer, he would have seen that I safeguarded the position of Parliament.

BOMBAY-LANCASHIRE AGREEMENT.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether negotiations have yet been commenced between the Government of Great Britain and the Government of India for a comprehensive trade agreement extending the principles of the Ottawa Agreement to include all textiles?

Sir S. HOARE: The matter is under consideration. As a first step the Government of India are seeking to obtain legislative authority for the Bombay-Lancashire Agreement. I will then consider in consultation with the Viceroy how this and other matters may be related to the Ottawa settlement.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Does the Tariff Bill introduced into the Legislative Assembly to-day, although it carries out a certain measure of agreement between the Lancashire textile representatives and the Indian millowners, in any way represent the final word of the Government of India on the representations which have been made to them by the textile delegation?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member will see, if he refers to my answer, that I specifically state that as the first step the Government of India is seeking legislative authority for the Bombay-Lancashire Agreement. That implies that there may be subsequent discussion. I will then consider, in consultation with the Viceroy, how this and other matters may be related to the Ottawa settlement. I am conscious of the point my hon. Friend has stated.

UNIVERSITY TRAINING.

Sir W. DAVISON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether steps will be taken by the Government of India to limit the numbers of Indians taking a university course with the object of obtaining a degree, in view of the numbers of Indian graduates leaving the universities each year without any chance of obtaining suitable employment; and whether he will obtain a report on this matter from the French Colonial Office, which for some time has limited the output of college-trained men with regard to the employment available for them in the particular Colony?

Sir S. HOARE: It is for the authorities of the Indian universities and not
for Government to decide whether any limitation of the kind shall be imposed. I doubt whether the suggestion made by my hon. Friend in the second part of his question would serve any useful purpose.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been the same difficulty in French Colonies, and they have had considerable success in allaying discontent in the way suggested in the question? Does he know that there is a very considerable number of these Indian intelligentsia who have obtained a university degree and are without employment?

Sir S. HOARE: There are a great many universities in the world whose students are unable to find employment. If the hon. Member has any special information bearing upon the question, I shall be glad to receive it.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a recent committee of inquiry into the Punjab University stated that the main reason for the increase in unemployment among educated young men in India was a defective system of education, which required drastic remedies?

Sir S. HOARE: Even so, I am not sure that whether the withdrawal of grants will have the effect my hon. Friend has in mind.

MILITARY PARADES (CIVILIANS).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 5 and 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) on what grounds notices were recently served on persons living in the district of Contai, in Midnapur, that they were to present themselves on the route of march to welcome soldiers of the Royal Garhwali Regiment and to salute the British flag; and whether force was applied to compel persons to leave their homes and to carry out this order;
(2) whether he will state the number of civilians apprehended for failing to carry out orders to attend military parades; and whether he will state under what statutory authority civilians in India are required to leave their homes and employment to attend parades and military ceremonies?

Sir S. HOARE: I have asked for the information desired by the hon. Member,
and, if he will repeat his questions next week, I hope to be able to give him a full reply.

EXECUTION, LAHORE.

Mr. BERNAYS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state the results of the inquiry into the Lahore execution on 21st November?

Sir S. HOARE: The investigation has shown that the order postponing the execution was delivered at the gaol at 11 on the morning of the day before the execution took place, but, owing to the failure of the clerk in the Punjab Government Secretariat who dispatched the order to indicate on the envelope either the nature of its contents or its urgency, the order was not placed before the goal superintendent until 10 o'clock next morning, after the execution had been carried out. The Superintendent of the Judicial Branch of the Secretariat also failed in his duty to see that an acknowledgment of the receipt of the order of postponement had been duly received from the superintendent of the gaol before the time fixed for the execution. Disciplinary action has been taken against both the dispatcher and the Superintendent of the Judicial Branch of the Secretariat. Steps are being taken to examine in all provinces the procedure in regard to orders of stay of executions with a view to making any recurrence of such a mistake impossible.

Mr. BERNAYS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government of India that communications of this kind should in future be conducted by telegram to prevent such a terrible calamity happening again?

Sir S. HOARE: That is the kind of question which is now being considered between the Government of India and His Majesty's Government.

TERRORISM.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India in which provinces of British India terrorist crimes and offences, actual or attempted, have been discovered in the course of the past year; and whether he will give the number of such outrages and offences, including murders in general and murders by gunmen, for the last six months of the year 1933 and for the year 1933 as a whole?

Sir S. HOARE: I have not yet received detailed information which would enable me to answer the second part of the question. As regards the first part, the provinces outside Bengal affected during the first half of the year were the United Provinces, Punjab, Bombay, Madras and Assam. In these provinces these offences were mainly of an isolated nature.

Duchess of ATHOLL: It is not the case that the "Review of India" for November contained a list of terrorist crimes or offences, actual or attempted, or trials for such crimes occurring not only in the provinces mentioned by my right hon. Friend, but in the Central Provinces in Bihar and Orissa, which I do not think he mentioned, and in Assam?

Sir S. HOARE: I will look into the reference the Noble Lady has brought to my attention, but I can assure her that the answer I have given to her is correct.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now give the figures of terrorist crimes and offences, actual and attempted, in Bengal during the last six months of 1933; and whether he can explain the difference between the figures he has given for these outrages occurring in 1932, and the figures given in the Moral and Material Progress of India, 1931–32?

Sir S. HOARE: I have asked the Government of India to supply me with the later statistics of terrorist crime and with the explanation of the discrepancy referred to in the second part of the question, but I have not yet received the information.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India, if he is aware that the home member of the Bengal Government informed the Bengal Provincial Council that his Government is confronted with a dangerous and growing conspiracy; will he state since when terrirosm in Bengal has been on the increase; how this increase has manifested itself; and what steps the Bengal Government propose to take to deal with it?

Sir S. HOARE: I have seen a report of the home member's speech in the Press. The present terrorist campaign began with the Chittagong Armoury Raid
in April, 1930, and has been continued with determination ever since. Latterly the police have had increasing success in dealing with the manifestations of the campaign. Part of this success has been the discovery of information as to its organisation and extent. While a number of leaders have been captured, the recruitment of terrorists still continues. Its manifestations have been checked but its potentialities still remain serious, especially on account of the continuance of recruitment which has necessitated further measures on the part of the Government. The Government of Bengal have therefore introduced a Bill to make permanent the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act and to strengthen the existing legislation in various directions which experience has shown to be necessary.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask my right hon. Friend if it is not the case that the necessity for recently introducing this Bill into the Bengal Provincial Council, and the speech made by the home member of the Bengal Government, to which the questions refers, indicate that there has been a recrudescence of terrorist crime since 17th July last, when he informed the House of Commons that in his opinion we had now "got level" with terrorism?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, my Noble Friend is not correct in drawing that

Indian Ecclesiastical Expenditure, 1927–28 to 1931–32.


—
1927–28.
1928–29.
1929–30.
1930–31.
1931–32.


(1) In India.






Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.


Church of England (now Church of India).
19,55,341
19,34,971
19,35,964
19,21,836
19,12,335


Church of Scotland
…
…
…
2,03,142
2,05,892
1,93,153
2,07,479
1,90,238


Church of Rome
…
…
…
3,09,360
2,93,251
2,94,050
2,98,728
2,96,203


Methodist Church
…
…
…
1,22,509
1,00,052
1,05,837
1,09,917
1,12,261


Baptist and Congregational Churches
5,312
9,582
20,002
19,384
21,025


Total in India
…
…
…
25,95,664
25,43,758
25,49,006
25,57,344
25,32,062






£
£
£
£
£


= Sterling at Rs.13⅓ = £1
…
194,675
190,782
191,175
191,801
189,904


(2) In England.






£
£
£
£
£


Church of India and Church of Scotland
66,616
63,140
61,705
63,839
55,629


Total
…
…
…
261,291
253,922
257,880
255,640
245,533

assumption from what I have said. What has happened is, that better organisation against terrorism has brought to light information which was not in our possession before. The situation is better in that respect than it was last July. Our information is better, and because our information is better, we are now able to take more effective steps against terrorism.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Are we to understand then that the statement in the preamble to the Bill lately introduced into the Bengal Legislative Council, which speaks of the recrudescence of terrorism and other crimes and the statement of the home member, are inaccurate?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, certainly not, and there is no divergence between those statements and what I have said.

ECCLESIASTICAL DEPARTMENT.

Mr. T. SMITH: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the amount of the expenditure from Indian revenues on the Ecclesiastical Department of the Government of India during each of the past five years, and give particulars as to how this money is allotted between the different church denominations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I am circulating a table giving the information asked for.

Following is the table:

BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to impress upon the Brazilian Government the hardship which is being experienced by British investors who entrusted their savings to the good faith of the State of Rio de Janeiro, whose obligations have now been in default for some years; and will he notify the Brazilian authorities that fresh Brazilian loans will not be permitted to be issued in the United Kingdom unless these and similar defaults by Brazilian public authorities have been brought to an agreed conclusion?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The foreign debts of the State of Rio de Janeiro are covered by the scheme for the consolidation of all the Brazilian Federal, State and municipal debts, which has been put before the Provisional President of Brazil by the Minister of Finance. No representations have been made to the Brazilian Government in regard to the debt of Rio de Janeiro, as it has been considered essential to await the publication of the final decision of the Brazilian Government in regard to the general scheme referred to above, before considering the desirability of taking this step. As regards the second part of this question, as my hon. Friend is aware, no issues involving remittance abroad are being made on the London market, and the question therefore does not at present arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

BRITISH CREDITORS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen the protest of the British Long-term and Medium-term Creditors' Committee, and similarly that of the American Committee, addressed to the President of the German Reichsbank, dated 22nd December, 1933, with regard to the treatment of creditors by the German authorities; and will he, for the joint protection of British and United States nationals, invite the United States Government to adopt a policy, in association with His Majesty's Government, of setting up exchange clearings as a remedy for the unilateral con-
ditions of default imposed upon foreign creditors under the German transfer moratorium?

Sir J. SIMON: I have seen a copy of the British protest, but have no information respecting that of the United States Committee. As regards the second part of the question, I am obliged to my hon. Friend for deferring it from Wednesday last till to-day. My hon. Friend will now have seen the text of the agreement reached between the British and United States creditors' representatives and the German authorities, published in the newspapers of the 1st February.

ARREST.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information of the arrest of Walter Spielmann, a British subject by birth, at Offenbach, near Frankfurt, and his sentence of 2½ years' imprisonment for having made contemptuous remarks about conditions in Nazi Germany; and whether he can make a statement on the matter?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. But according to my information Mr. Spielmann possesses German as well as British nationality and in these circumstances, in accordance with general principles, he is not entitled, in Germany, to the protection of His Majesty's Government. I am not therefore in a position to intervene.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Did he apply for the protection of His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot say, but it is a very well known rule of international law, as would be inferred from my answer.

BALKAN STATES.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the exchange of visits between the kings of Jugoslavia, Rumania, and Bulgaria, His Majesty's Ministers in those countries have received instructions to express His Majesty's Government's views as to the terms on which peace and co-operation may be best secured in the Balkans; and whether such terms provide for the
application of full rights under the minority treaties for the Bulgarian minority in Jugoslavia?

Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Ministers in the countries concerned have, on my instructions, informed the Governments to which they are accredited that His Majesty's Government would welcome any pact between the Balkan States tending to general pacification and co-operation, provided that it is not directed against any other Power or Powers. It would for this reason be desirable that the terms of the Pact should, if possible, be so drafted as to secure the accession of Bulgaria. In reply to the last part of the question, provisions for the application of the minorities treaties are already contained in the treaties themselves and in the rules of procedure laid down by the Council of the League of Nations.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it will be very difficult to secure peace between these three countries unless there is peace between the several nationalities within each of these countries, and that particularly is that the case with Jugoslavia?

Sir J. SIMON: I think, as a general proposition, that is undoubtedly true.

Mr. MABANE: Is it correctly reported that the Bulgarian Pact was initialed on Saturday, with the exclusion of Bulgaria?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the Pact was initialed last night, but I have not seen the text.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the exclusion of Bulgaria was her own act, or the act of the other Powers?

Sir J. SIMON: I should not like to give an answer to that question offhand, the importance of which I quite understand. I will gladly inform myself, if the right hon. Gentleman will put the question down again.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not public knowledge that the Bulgarian Government was invited to join but declined to do so?

Sir J. SIMON: I believe that that is so.

AUSTRIA.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the policy of His Britannic Majesty's Government to support the independence of Austria?

Sir J. SIMON: The Government are watching the situation in Austria with the closest attention. The attitude of His Majesty's Government was stated by me to the House on 21st December last and that statement still represents the policy of His Majesty's Government in the matter.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it possible to preserve the independence of Austria if we abolish our Army, Navy, and Air Force?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give the House any further information as to Austro-German relations?

Sir J. SIMON: My right hon. Friend will have seen in the Press a summary of the reply returned by the German Government to the recent démarche of the Austrian Government. I have no further official information but I understand that this reply is now being considered by the Austrian Government. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that, in these circumstances, I cannot make any further statement at the present time.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Will my right hon. Friend say that His Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to the fair treatment of Austria in this connection?

Sir J. SIMON: I think the answer I gave on 21st December covers that matter clearly and fairly.

PASSPORTS AND VISAS.

Mr. BERNAYS: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which are the European countries whose nationals still require a visa to enable them to enter this country; and which European countries still impose a visa system upon nationals of this country?

Sir J. SIMON: Visas to enter the United Kingdom are necessary for
nationals of the following countries in Europe: Albania, Bulgaria, the Free City of Danzig, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Rumania, Turkey, Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and Yugoslavia. British subjects still require visas for the same countries with the exception of the Free City of Danzig.

Mr. BERNAYS: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider opening negotiations with the various foreign countries concerned with a view to the alteration of the visa system?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. I regret that His Majesty's Government still feel obliged to adhere to their decision that it is not possible, at present, for financial reasons, to enter into any further agreements for the reduction or abolition of visa fees.

Mr. BERNAYS: Will my right hon. Friend examine the possibility of abolishing visas to countries which will give the same reciprocal advantages to us?

Sir J. SIMON: That is a matter which is considered from time to time, but I am afraid that I cannot add to the answer which I have just given to my hon. Friend.

RUSSIA (CONVENTIONS ON AGGRESSION).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the conclusion by the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics of conventions on aggression with a number of States, and the declaration of the Commissar for Foreign Affairs that the Soviet Union is ready to sign similar conventions with any other States irrespective of their geographical position and existing relations with itself, he will set on foot negotiations for the conclusion of a similar convention on the part of His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. In view of their existing engagements under the Pact of Paris, to which the Soviet Government are also a party, and under the Covenant of the League of Nations, His Majesty's Government do not consider it necessary to initiate such negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITIONS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 23.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it is proposed to hold an international exhibition in London in 1936 with the support of His Majesty's Government?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The terms of the International Convention relating to International Exhibitions, which was signed at Paris in 1928 and came into force at the end of 1930, and to which the United Kingdom is a party, render it impossible either for His Majesty's Government to give official support to a long-term international exhibition in this country at the date mentioned, or for those foreign Governments which are parties to the Convention to participate in it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are the rumours in regard to the Crystal Palace quite unfounded?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes.

INVISIBLE EXPORTS, 1933.

Mr. TOUCHE: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give any further estimate of the amount of our invisible exports in 1933, and their consequent effect upon the trade balance for that year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): An estimate of the balance of trade for the year 1933 is being prepared and will be published in the "Board of Trade Journal," as usual, about the end of this month.

JAPANESE COMPETITION (HONG KONG).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the dumping of Japanese cement in Hong Kong; and what action he proposes to take to protect the local industry?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): My right hon. Friend has already been in communication with the Governor of Hong Kong on the subject of Japanese imports of
cement into that Colony. The Governor, after taking into consideration all the circumstances, including the advantage to the trade of Hong Kong of its status as a free port, reported that he did not consider it desirable to interfere with such imports.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Does that mean that this industry of Hong Kong, which has been established at a good deal of expense, is now to be left to be decimated by Japanese competition?

Mr. MacDONALD: The Government of Hong Kong is doing all it can to help, and have made arrangements to use as much British cement as is possible in all public works. I understand that during last year it gave an order of some 70,000 tons in connection with waterworks.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Are we to understand from the reply that the Governor of Hong Kong has definitely reported to His Majesty's Government saying that protection for this native industry of Hong Kong against Japanese competition in cement is not necessary or advisable?

Mr. MacDONALD: I can add nothing to my reply, which completely answers that question. The Governor has taken many circumstances into consideration, and has come to this decision.

SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Miss WARD: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information as to the extent to which the Government of Northern Ireland is affording Irish shipbuilders assistance, either directly or indirectly, through the banks or through or any other agency?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am informed that no assistance is given by the Government of Northern Ireland to shipbuilders in that country. If my hon. Friend has in mind the facilities afforded to shipowners under the Loans Guarantee Acts for the construction of ships in Northern Ireland, I understand that the guarantees given amount to about £1,250,000 over the last two years.

Miss WARD: Is there any truth in the rumour that a sum of money equivalent to the unemployment benefit which would have been paid if the work involved in
a contract had not been obtained, is being paid by the Northern Ireland Government to the bank?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can hardly answer for rumours, but I have given my hon. Friend the facts for which she asked. If she wants to know any further facts and will give me notice, I shall be happy to inquire into the matter.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Would the Financial Secretary say, without notice, whether his answer covers also the municipal authorities?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My answer covers only the question on the Paper.

Mr. D. D. REID: On a point of Order. If there was a guarantee, about which I know nothing, as this is a matter within the control of the Northern Ireland Parliament and there is no Minister in this House who could be responsible for the transaction, is the question on the Paper in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: Since the hon. Gentleman has asked me, looking at the question I should say that it was not a matter for the Minister.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not competent for a Minister to furnish Members of this House with information as to what subsidy a foreign Government may be granting, even though no Minister here is responsible, assuming that the information comes within the knowledge of the Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: So far as the Minister can give information the question would be in order, but of course the Minister has no responsibility in the matter.

IMPORT DUTIES (BOOKS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the situation arising in the case of imported books which by their nature are on the free list, but which, owing to the inclusion of a minute proportion of silk in their binding, are chargeable with duty on the whole value of the volume; and whether he will take the necessary action to have this adjusted?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and, as regards the second
part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for the South-West Division of Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) on the 20th December last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MEAT (MARKING).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is proposed to give effect, and, if so, when, to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on the Marking of Meat?

Mr. ELLIOT: The recommendations of the Committee are under consideration by the Departments concerned, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

SEASONAL WORK (CAMPS).

Captain HEILGERS: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is intended to continue the work of the agricultural camps committee during the summer of 1934?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Agricultural Camps Committee is a voluntary body which undertakes the organising of camps of unemployed urban workers for seasonal work on farms. I am not in a position to speak for the Committee but I understand that it is at present considering its course of action for the coming summer.

Captain HEILGERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the work of this committee was most unsatisfactory last year and that in several cases debts incurred by the committee in the spring of last year have not yet been discharged?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I do not wish to discuss the matter at present.

COLORADO BEETLE.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases of Colorado Beetle have been brought to his attention during the recent summer and autumn; and whether he is satisfied that the present arrangements are sufficient to prevent the spread of this pest?

Mr. ELLIOT: Two or three beetles have been discovered in each of 10 allotments and gardens in the Tilbury district and two in a group of allotments on the other side of the Thames at Gravesend. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am fully alive to the menace of this pest and no efforts will be spared to prevent its establishment in this country. I hope that the precautions which have been and are being taken and which will be supplemented by further measures during the coming summer will be effective.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how these beetles came into this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I cannot say, but the centre of the infestation is not a very great distance on the other side of the Channel.

POTATO MARKETING SCHEME.

Captain HEILGERS: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the result of the recent poll of registered producers on the potato marketing scheme?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am glad to inform the House that the result of the poll on the Potato Marketing Scheme, which was declared to-day, is overwhelmingly in favour of the scheme remaining in force. The result may be summarised as follows:—Of the votes admitted, 90.44 per cent. were in favour of the scheme remaining in force and 9.56 per cent. were against. The acreage returned by producers voting in favour of the scheme was 90.6 per cent. and that returned by producers voting against was 9.4 per cent. of the total acreage under potatoes returned by all registered producers.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. LAMBERT: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make an immediate pronouncement as to the means contemplated by the Government to implement their promise to assist the milk marketing scheme by the adequate protection of Home-produced milk products, having regard to the fact that negotiations now proceeding between the Milk Marketing Board and manufacturers of milk products are likely to be prejudiced in the absence of such a pronouncement?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that the Milk Marketing Board and representa-
tives of the purchasers of milk having been unable to agree regarding the price to be paid for milk in the next contract period, the matter has now, in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, been referred for decision to the persons whom I have appointed for the purpose. I do not anticipate that they will be in a position to give their decision much before the end of the month. I fully appreciate that it is important that any announcement of Government policy should be made as soon as possible, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that there will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. LAMBERT: Having regard to the importance of this matter and of the Milk Marketing Board being able to carry on its operations, can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I cannot give a date.

MEAT IMPORTS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the result of the negotiations which have been proceeding with a view to readjusting the proportion of boned and boneless meat imported from foreign countries under this designation?

Dr. BURGIN: This matter has been discussed with the importers of meat from South America who have agreed to take any necessary steps to ensure that the proportion of boned beef imported by them does not exceed that which obtained in the basic year referred to in the Ottawa Agreements.

TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if it is the intention of the Government to deal with the question of tithes this Session?

Mr. ELLIOT: The position remains as indicated in the replies which I gave on 7th December last to questions on this subject by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot).

Sir W. WAYLAND: Is not the Minister aware of the intensely bitter feelings of those farmers who are paying excessive tithe, which in many cases is more than the rent, and does he not think it neces-
sary in the interests of peace and justice to deal with the revision of the Act of 1925 this year?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot enter into discussion of the merits of the case at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

EXPENDITURE (CABLES).

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General what amount the Post Office has spent in the year ended 31st December last on telephone cables and cables in general; and what amount it proposes to spend in the present year?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): Purchases of lead-covered paper-core cables (including armoured cables) fall into two classes:

(1) Cables purchased from and laid by contractors;
(2) Cables purchased from contractors and laid by the Department's own workmen.

As regards (1) the orders placed or expected to be placed are



£


Year to 31st December, 1933
240,000


Year to 31st December, 1934
250,000

As regards (2) the amounts spent or expected to be spent are



£


Year to 31st December, 1933
520,000


Year to 31st December, 1934
450,000

WIRELESS TELEPHONY (LERWICK AND WHALSAY SKERRIES).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can state when telephonic communication by wireless will be established between Lerwick and the Whalsay Skerries?

Sir K. WOOD: The equipment is now being manufactured, and I hope that the service will be established next April.

FACILITIES, BARLOW MOOR, MANCHESTER.

Mr. FLEMING: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to give any further information with regard to the provision of a branch Post Office on the Barlow Moor housing estate at Chorlton, Manchester?

Sir K. WOOD: Applications have been invited for the position of sub-postmaster from candidates with premises conveniently situated to serve the estate, but no appointment has yet been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

RESEARCH.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to carry on research work on behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation at the new Post Office Research Institution at Dollis Hill; and, if so, what sum is to be spent by his Department annually on such research?

Sir K. WOOD: No research work is being carried out at Dollis Hill on behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and no such work is in contemplation, but some of the results of the wireless research work of the Post Office are of benefit to broadcast listeners—for example, the development of methods of preventing interference with wireless reception caused by electrical apparatus of various kinds.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Is it not a fact that last year the Post Office received £2,750,000 of revenue from wireless licences, and is it not a good thing that his new research station, on which I congratulate him, should be used for further progressive research work?

Sir K. WOOD: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for his congratulations.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: That is not an answer to my supplementary question.

WIRELESS RECEPTION (INTERFERENCE).

Sir G. FOX: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied with the progress being made in the elimination of interference with wireless reception; and whether he anticipates that his present arrangements will result in the virtual elimination of such interference in this country in the course of the next two or three years?

Sir K. WOOD: The question of eliminating electrical interference with wireless reception is at present under consideration by a committee appointed by the Institution of Electrical Engineers,
on which the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Post Office are represented, in addition to the electrical and wireless interests concerned. Pending the receipt of the committee's report, I cannot express an opinion on the prospects of the complete elimination of such interference. In the meantime the Post Office is not relaxing its efforts to deal with this difficult problem by tracing the cause of interference in individual cases and urging—for the most part with success—the fitting of remedial devices.

Sir G. FOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken by his Department to bring to the notice of the public the facilities at the command of the Post Office for eliminating wireless interference?

Sir K. WOOD: I shall be glad to send my hon. Friend particulars of the steps which we are taking in that direction.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS (COMMENTS).

Mr. BOOTHBY: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will order the excision in future of all comments on foreign affairs in the programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Sir K. WOOD: The matter of the scope of the programmes and the discretion of the directors of the British Broadcasting Corporation in relation thereto were recently considered by the House, and such a suggestion as my hon. Friend makes would not be in harmony with the resolution which was then approved by a large majority.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Does my right hon. Friend consider that it is in the national interest that Nazi propaganda should be conducted by officials of the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Sir K. WOOD: If my hon. Friend will send me any information on that matter, I will gladly send it, with his comments, to the directors of the corporation.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Does my right hon. Friend know whether any complaints have come from foreign countries recently?

Sir K. WOOD: I must have notice of that question.

DEFAMATION AND LIBEL.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 39.
asked the Attorney-General if he would be prepared to represent to the Lord Chancellor the advisability of referring to the Standing Joint Committee recently appointed by the Lord Chancellor to consider the revision of legal doctrines and decisions in the light of modern conditions the present position of the law of defamation, more especially in regard to libel actions against newspapers?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I understand that this committee is at present sufficiently occupied with the questions which have already been referred to it, but at a later date the suggestion of my Noble and gallant Friend will receive the most careful consideration.

BUSINESS OF COURTS COMMITTEE.

Mr. EVERARD: 40.
asked the Attorney-General what action he proposes to take with regard to the protests received from the legal and business interests in Leicester against the proposals of the second interim report of the Business of Courts Committee?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The protests, to which my hon. Friend refers[...] are now receiving the most careful consideration of my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, but I am not in a position at present to make any statement in the matter.

Mr. EVERARD: Will the Solicitor-General respectfully convey to the Lord Chancellor the wishes of the people of Leicester that the convenience of the legal and business interests of Leicester should be taken into consideration just as much as the convenience of His Majesty's Judges and lawyers?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Lord Chancellor is anxious to receive opinions from all those who may be affected, and will give them the most careful consideration.

Mr. GOLDIE: Can the Solicitor-General say whether an opportunity will be given the House to discuss the report of the Business of Courts Committee?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can make no statement on that matter.

Mr. CAPORN: Would not the appointment of a new Judge get over the difficulty more speedily?

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (REDISTRIBUTION).

Captain ARTHUR HOPE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great changes in population since the last Redistribution Act in 1918, he proposes to introduce a Redistribution of Constituencies Bill?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the existence of some anomalies due to changes in population, but the present would not appear to be a convenient time for the introduction of a measure of redistribution.

Captain HOPE: Surely it would be more opportune to deal with this matter during the longer Parliamentary life of the present Parliament than in a new Parliament, when life may perhaps be more hectic?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is the Under-Secretary also aware of the anomaly existing in respect of two-Member constituencies, and that in a unanimous report of the committee dealing with this matter they said that these two-Member constituencies should be done away with. Would he look, therefore, with favourable consideration on the introduction of a Bill dealing with the matter?

Mr. HACKING: I am aware of that fact, and also of the fact that there are many other anomalies with which it is difficult to deal.

WEST INDIES (CLOSER UNION).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has now received from the Governors of the Leeward and Windward Islands the information he asked for regarding the implications of the recommendations of the West Indies Closer Union Commission; and, if so, whether he has reached a decision upon the subject of this report?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: Though the information received is not yet complete in every respect, it will be sufficient to enable the matter to be discussed at early meetings of the Legislatures in the Leeward and Windward Islands, for which arrangements are being made. Until local opinion has thus been ascertained no final decision in the matter will be taken.

POOR LAW RELIEF (LANCASHIRE).

Mr. TINKER: 51.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief from the Lancashire County Council for the years 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The average number of persons (men, women and children) in receipt of poor relief from the Lancaster County Council (excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals and persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only) was 23,409 in the last nine months of 1930, 24,875 in 1931, 31,001 in 1932, and 37,312 in 1933. These figures are based on the numbers on the last Saturday in each month.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any explanation for these extraordinary increases?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I could give several, but the obvious one is the trade depression.

Mr. DAVIES: Have these increases anything to do with unemployed persons being put off the register?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that anyone who is disallowed benefit remains on the unemployment register although he may receive Poor Law relief?

SCOTLAND (IMPORTED OATS).

Mr. WHITE: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the heavy losses incurred by the importers of oats and oat products owing to engagements in regard to currency and freight and contracts affected by the Additional Import Duties Order, No. 1 (1934); and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend received a deputation on the subject last Tuesday from associations of importers, representatives of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries being present. There is no power under existing legislation to take the action for which the importers ask, and I can hold out no hope of new legislation for this purpose.

Mr. WHITE: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, WARRINGTON (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 56 and 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether he will take steps to make the Warrington Advisory Committee more representative, fill vacancies on the existing magisterial bench and, in doing so, pay special regard to the need for appointing men and women who have an understanding of the juvenile mind;
(2) whether he will state the present constitution of the Warrington Advisory Committee; when it was so constituted and who were asked to nominate; how many vacancies exist at the present time; when the committee last met; and whether he will take into consideration the dissatisfaction which is being expressed regarding the present personnel?

Mr. LOGAN: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the steps being taken to fill the vacancies caused by death and resignation on the magisterial bench at Warrington; and whether consideration is being given to the necessity for having magistrates, particularly women magistrates and those who have a knowledge of work amongst juveniles, to sit on the newly-constituted children's courts at Warrington?

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. J. C. Davidson): The Warrington Advisory Committee which consists of Mr. George Bowman, Mr. David Plinston and Mr. James Smethurst, was constituted in July, 1932, and has recently been reviewed. No vacancies exist. I am satisfied that the
Committee represents fairly the different shades of opinion in the borough and affords no reasonable ground for dissatisfaction. In the appointment of Lancashire Advisory Committees for which I am responsible, I am free to seek advice in the manner and from the source which appears most suitable but although I am in no way committed to consult any particular organisation or individual, all representations made to me receive most careful consideration. The dates of Committee meetings are a matter for the Committee. Recommendations of the Committee are considered when I am advised by them that a group of appointments to the bench is necessary for the due administration of justice. The attention of City and Borough Advisory Committees in Lancashire has been drawn to the need for magistrates specially qualified to deal with the new requirements under the Children and Young Persons Act.

Mr. GOLDIE: Will the right hon. Member consider the desirability of placing a representative of the teaching profession in Warrington on the Warrington Borough Bench?

Mr. DAVIDSON: That, and other considerations, will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour what would be the additional cost to the insurance fund of an increase in the allowance for dependent children to 3s. in respect of the first child and 2s. 6d. in respect of the second?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): An increase in the allowance for dependent children to 3s. in respect of the first child and to 2s. 6d. in respect of a second child would on the basis of finance assumed from the Unemployment Bill, increase the amount of benefit estimated to be payable by about £1,050,000. This figure does not include transitional payments.

STATISTICS.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE): 59.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed for the month
ended December, 1933, and for the month ended January of the current year, or nearest available date?

Mr. HUDSON: The total for 18th December last was 2,224,079. Later figures are not yet available.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (TRAINING FLIGHT).

Sir W. DAVISON: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the flight over the City and Central London for nearly two hours on Thursday evening of a large aeroplane with heavy-droning engines, as to which neither the Air Ministry or any of the civil aerodromes round London have any knowledge; and whether foreign aeroplanes are permitted to cruise for several hours over London at night without having previously obtained a permit?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The aircraft to which my hon. Friend evidently refers was a Royal Air Force aircraft carrying out training exercise, during the evening, in co-operation with ground forces. Such training flights are arranged in the Royal Air Force commands without reference to the Air Ministry.

AUCTION SALES.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will put the law into operation when auctioneers publish prices implying sale at those prices of articles passing through their hands although the articles are known to the auctioneers to have been bought in for the vendors or, alternatively, require auctioneers to state whether the prices they publish refer to a sale or not?

Mr. HACKING: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Chatham Division (Sir P. Goff) on the 12th December last.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the extent to which the public are victimised by these practices?

Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir, but the efficiency of the law is not to blame; it is the fact that people generally are not prepared to give evidence.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member aware that some auctioneers allow prices of goods which have been bought back to appear as if they were the actual purchase prices of those goods, and that this is apt to mislead the public as to market values? Will he draw the attention of the auctioneers' profession to the result of the practice complained of?

Mr. HACKING: The real difficulty is that if a person pays £5 for something which is worth only 5s. he is not, generally, prepared to expose the hoax.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 63.
asked the Home Secretary if he is in a position to say how many colliery undertakings have gone into liquidation since January, 1927, and how many of them have failed to meet the full claims of injured workmen under the requirements of the Workmen's Compensation Act; and what has been the total deficiency on this account?

Mr. HACKING: I would refer the hon. Member to the explanatory statement on pages 13 and 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Statistics for 1932. Since the publication of those statistics, there have been three further liquidations, bringing the total number of liquidations to date since 1st January, 1927, to 283. In 28 of these liquidations the workmen have suffered a permanent loss, totalling about £190,000, and in seven cases not yet settled there is a possibility of such loss.

Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently a colliery closed down in Lancashire and that the workmen were told they were not insured and were not likely to get any benefit? Has not the time arrived for the Government to take some steps in the matter?

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member knows that it is a very difficult question, and that my right hon. Friend has been
taking certain steps to get a mutual understanding. If he asks me whether my right hon. Friend is still satisfied with the existing position, the answer is definitely in the negative.

Mr. TINKER: If the Government are not satisfied, surely they ought to get a move on?

Mr. COVE: Hear, hear. It is a scandal.

COKE IMPORTS.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE): 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of tons of coke imported into Great Britain from Belgium; and if he is aware of the excessive amount of coke awaiting purchase in the North of England suitable for blast furnaces?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): In 1932, imports of Belgian coke into this country amounted to 9,718 tons, and in 1933 to 16,666 tons. With regard to the second part of the question, I am not aware of abnormal supplies of blast furnace coke being available in the North of England.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is necessary in these days to import this quantity of coke from Belgium?

Mr. BROWN: I could not do that in answer to a question at Question Time.

CODEX SINAITICUS.

Mr. TINKER: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is now in a position to say when the Supplementary Estimate will be laid before the House to meet the £50,000 promised by the Government towards the purchase price of the Sinai Codex Bible?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is contemplated that a Supplementary Estimate will be submitted to the House for this purpose next July.

Mr. TINKER: If the amount collected from the public does not reach £50,000, will the Government supply the £50,000 which has been promised?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A similar question was addressed to the Prime Minister a few days ago, and I would refer the hon. Member to it.

Mr. TINKER: I put the question to the Prime Minister, and he has passed it on to the Financial Secretary. I thought the Prime Minister was not able to be present, but I see he is here, and I should like him to reply.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The question was answered before.

DISARMAMENT (GERMAN-POLISH PACT).

Brigadier-General NATION (for Mr. WHYTE): 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the German-Polish pact for non-aggression; and if, in view of the success of this negotiation and in order that the cause of peace may best be served, he will take steps to have the Disarmament Conference disbanded and so leave nations free to negotiate similar binding agreements between themselves?

Sir J. SIMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The two Governments have been informed of the satisfaction with which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have learned of the conclusion of this pact. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

METROPOLITAN POLICE CANTEENS.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE): 64.
asked the Home Secretary the reasons for the change in the management of police canteens; and whether there is to be any change in the allocation of the profits?

Mr. HACKING: The primary object of the change is to ensure to the authorities an effective measure of control over the affairs of the canteens while affording to members of the force ample opportunities to make their wishes known as regards any matter affecting them as consumers. Any profits will continue to be used for the benefit of the force as a whole.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. T. SMITH: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Last Thursday I put a ques-
tion to the Minister of Health relating to certain expenditure incurred as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's visit to Grimsby. In the course of putting a Supplementary Question, owing to interjections I made reference to a conversation I had had a day or two previously with the Parliamentary Secretary. After I had made that reference I felt that perhaps I had done something contrary to Parliamentary form. That I now seek to rectify by apologising to the Parliamentary Secretary.
I also feel in duty bound to say a few words to the Minister of Health. I make no apology for having put down the original question, because I believed that in the public interest it was essential that the matter should be cleared up. At the same time I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I had not the slightest intention of making any reflection upon his personal character. My main purpose was to ascertain whether the local ratepayers were being asked to bear a charge which did not rightly belong to them. Having said so much, I conclude by hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister, and the House will accept this explanation in the spirit of sincerity in which it is given.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I should like to say that I much appreciate the hon. Member's statement, and I am obliged to him for making it.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I had intended to make a personal explanation myself, but, in view of the handsome way in which the hon. Member has apologised, it is not necessary for me to do so. I accept his statement; I thank him personally; and, as far as I am concerned, the incident is forgotten.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.

Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [2nd February] to be resumed upon Friday, 16th February.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL,

"to enable the Postmaster-General, for the purpose of the Post Office, to acquire lands in London; and for purposes con-
nected therewith," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; supported by Sir Ernest Bennett; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

Ordered,
That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Post Office (Sites) Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Captain Sir William Brass and Lord Burghley; and had appointed in substitution; Sir Gifford Fox and Mr. Nunn.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Provision of authorised courses and other courses of instruction and training, and payment of allowances to persons attending thereat.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Before I call upon the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) to move the first Amendment on the Paper, may I point out that a number of Amendments appear on the Paper later on in his name and in the names of the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) and the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins). I assume that these form one block of Amendments dealing with the same matter, and, if I am correct, I would ask the hon. Member for Aberavon to develop his case on these Amendments in moving the first Amendment.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, to leave out from "shall" to "submit" in line 19.
I am obliged to you Captain Bourne for your suggestion which will, I believe, considerably facilitate discussion on this Clause—a matter of some importance having regard to the fact that the time is precious under the guillotine. This Amendment will give us an occasion to discuss the whole policy embodied in Clause 13. This is an extremely important part of the Bill. It contains the provision which the Government propose to make for those juveniles who will be unemployed in increasing numbers during the next few years, at least. We come therefore this afternoon to consider the policy and the concrete proposals of the Government for dealing with those unemployed children and that policy can be very briefly summarised. The Government know full well that additional children will be turned out of the schools during the next three or four years and that in 1937 those additional children will represent over 400,000, between the
ages of 14 and 18, more than there are at present. To those additional children and those who are unemployed now the Government say, "You shall still go into industry; you shall still leave the sheltered area of school and go out either into work or into unemployment."
Anyone who has made a study of the problem, and especially those who have read the illuminating reports issued by the universities, realise the great tragedy which lies before thousands of the youth of our country during the next few years. Those reports establish one or two important facts. They establish the fact that even if there were no increase in the child population coming into the area of work, there would still be a gigantic problem of unemployment. New developments in industry, processes of rationalisation and so forth, make it inevitable that industry will not continue to absorb an increasing number of young people. When to the contraction, which is due to the technique of industry itself, we add the larger numbers who will be turned out from the schools in the next few years, it will be realised that a grave and tragic problem lies before the country in this respect.
The Government have said that school life is not to be prolonged. They have definitely decided—I hope after serious consideration—that the school age is not to be raised. Instead of a raising of the school age we are to have a system of junior instruction centres. Last Monday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour seemed to deny that this Bill embodied the policy of the Government in relation to these juveniles. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, in particular, appeared to dispute my assertion that the Government had announced their policy as far as these children are concerned in this Bill; that they had said that they were not going to raise the school age, but that they were going to insure these young people and that they were going to create a system of junior instruction centres. The hon. Gentleman asked me to quote any phrase used by him which would bear out that statement. On that occasion I spoke from memory, but I have looked up the records since and I find that on 9th November the hon. Gen-
tleman was asked the following question by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor):
whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to raise the school-leaving age?
The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was as follows:
It is not part of the Government's policy to introduce legislation to raise the school-leaving age, but the Noble Lady will find the policy of the Government in regard to juveniles above the existing school-leaving age in the Unemployment Insurance Bill circulated to-day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1933; col. 301, Vol. 281.]
That seems to be clear and emphatic and to show that here we have the Government's policy in relation to these children. It is quite an inadequate policy. Some people say that if you raise the school leaving age, you will not have so much unemployment. At any rate, it is certain that those children who would be kept in school till the age of 15 at least would not be unemployed. Since this is the policy of the Government, it is essential that we should examine it with very great care. I will give the figures of the children going out in the next few years, from which it will be seen how inadequate the policy is. This year there are 55,000 more, in 1935 there will be 115,000 more, in 1936 306,000 more, and in 1937 443,000 more children between the ages of 14 and 18 in industry than there are at the present time. This increase will be due to the birthrate after the War period. The Minister has given us figures which show that he intends in the first year to provide for 100,000 places in the junior instruction centres, but he will have to reassure me on this point before I believe it. I see very considerable difficulties in providing for these 100,000, and I have doubts whether the Ministry will provide places for so many youths.
In regard to finance, it is estimated, I gather, that these 100,000 will cost about £13 per head, and that will be made up of a contribution from the Exchequer, a contribution from the local authority, and a contribution from the Insurance Fund. We have already said from this side, and we say it with emphasis to-day, that there ought not to be one single penny from the Insurance Fund towards the
financial maintenance of these junior instruction centres, that the money paid by those children and the employers, and by the Exchequer too, into the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be used definitely, specifically, and solely for the payment of insurance benefit and not for the maintenance of junior instruction centres. The whole cost ought to be borne by the National Exchequer. The finances of the scheme inflict an added injustice upon the distressed areas, because the bulk of these centres undoubtedly will be erected in the distressed areas, and the £280,000 which is budgeted for from the local authorities will mainly come from those areas which are least able to bear that financial burden.
I hope the Minister and the Committee will pay some regard to this point, that the figure of £13 is rather a significant and illuminating figure. With slight adjustments, it is the figure which shows the cost of educating each child in our elementary schools. In other words, you are going to pay per head for instruction in the junior instructions centres a little bit more, as a matter of fact, than you are paying already per pupil in the elementary schools. That is to say, the junior instruction centres will be at least as costly as educating those children would be if they were kept in the elementary schools. I think the Minister will agree that if he intends really to erect a big, broad system of junior instruction centres, which will provide for almost every unemployed child, if not all, then he has to provide for many more in the next few years than 100,000. Looking at the figures and at the present unemployment, I imagine that instead of budgeting for 100,000, the Minister will have to budget in three or four years' time for about 500,000 going to the junior instruction centres. I think it is reasonable to assert that between the ages of 14 and 18 in the next three or four years there will be half a million unemployed.
If the Minister will make a calculation and say, "I am going to have these 500,000 children in the junior instruction centres at £13 a head," he will see that he has to find round about £6,000,000, and that is more costly than raising the school age. If anyone will look at the financial estimate that was made during the period of the Labour Government, when the then Minister of Education brought in a Bill to raise the school age,
they will find that he made a financial statement. I looked it up this morning, and I believe I am right in saying that the actual cost of raising the school age, apart from maintenance grants, was put at about £2,500,000. Figures were also given for maintenance grants for 60 per cent. of those who attended the schools, and that figure was about £3,500,000, so that to provide for maintenance grants and for raising the school age would cost little if anything more than it is going to cost to provide for junior instruction centres.
On the grounds of broad public policy and of sound economy, which is not always financial economy, and on the grounds of the personal interest of these children, who are bound to deteriorate by prolonged unemployment, I say that the Government in this case are following a wrong and a false policy. But while we emphasise the need for raising the school age, we are also of opinion that since the Government have determined on a system of junior instruction centres, I believe I am correct in interpreting the views of the party to which I belong when I say that, while we emphatically declare that this is a third-rate policy, as it were, we equally say that since the Government have determined to embark upon it, we want to make the best job of it that we can.
As I understand the Clause, it is not at all certain that the Minister will get these junior instruction centres, because the Clause is curiously and somewhat vaguely worded. If it is examined, it will be found that discretion seems to be left to the local authorities. There will be some authorities, undoubtedly, who will be keen on getting junior instruction centres going. There will be other authorities who will not be keen. My Amendment is designed—and I move it on behalf of the party, as far as we are able to do so under the Bill—to make it absolutely certain that no education authority will have any opportunity at all for evading their duty in providing junior instruction centres. If hon. Members will look at the Clause, they will see that:
Every education authority shall …. take into consideration the number of persons in their area between the minimum age for entry into insurance and the age of eighteen years who are capable of and available for work but have no work or only part-time or intermittent work, and if,
having regard to that number, they are of opinion.
First of all, I would like to ask the Minister this specific question. How are the education authorities to ascertain the number of unemployed in their area? What facilities have they to find out the number? As I understand the Bill, it does not provide for lads going into agricultural occupations to be insured. They will be outside insurance. The local education authorities—I am not clear on the point—as far as I can see, will be absolutely dependent on the Ministry of Labour for those figures. Or is it intended that they should take upon themselves the duty of ascertaining the numbers of unemployed? If it is intended that the education authorities should take upon themselves this duty, then it appears to me that the Government are thrusting upon them an obligation which they ought not to bear. It ought to be the duty of the Ministry of Labour. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that view, I would like to ask him to explain to the Committee what machinery he intends to erect in order that local education authorities may know the exact number of children unemployed in their areas.
As a matter of fact, this Bill does not give us the number of children who will be unemployed. It does not give us, as far as I can see, even the machinery to find out the number. For years, we have had complaints that the extent of the problem is not known. Children are unemployed, and no one has been able to assert with any definiteness the number. I should have thought that in 1934 a Bill dealing with unemployed children would at least have made it very sure that the machinery of the Bill would find out the number actually unemployed, or provided some machinery to find out the extent of the problem. I have studied the Bill rather carefully in regard to this matter, and, as far as I can see, there is not in the Bill definite machinery for finding out the exact number of children who will be unemployed in any area.
The Clause says that discretion will be left to the authority. If the authority are of opinion that the number who are unemployed warrant it, then the junior instruction centre shall be set up. The discretion left to the authority gives room for great play, to say the least. Some authorities will think that junior instruc-
tion centres ought to be established if there are 20, shall we say, unemployed. Other local authorities will say, "We do not think that 20 or 30 warrant our organising junior instruction centres." They may say, "We agree that if there are 50, then we shall organise them." That play of discretion left to the local authorities in this Bill gives room for—I do not want to use the word harshly—evasion of the duty of providing these centres for all the children who are unemployed.
I do not see any inducement in this Clause, or in the whole of the Bill, to children who leave school without work, and even those who have had work, for registering that they are unemployed. There would be an inducement if an insurance benefit were paid, but no insurance benefit is to be paid under the Bill between the ages of 14 and 16 years, and, therefore, there is no practical inducement on the part of the children to register at the Unemployment Exchange. I know that the Minister is taking power in the Bill to compel children to attend. I cannot see that exercised very frequently. The Education Act is to be invoked if children do not go to instruction centres where provided.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now entering into a discussion on Clause 14.

Mr. COVE: At any rate, I would like to know from the Minister what action he intends to take in order to ensure that the junior instruction centres shall be established for every unemployed child throughout the length and breadth of the land. Perhaps I may raise the point, by reference to the definition Clause, that the education authority mentioned here is the education authority responsible for higher education. That, in England at least, means that the county authority will be responsible. I hope I may say, in passing, that the Minister will keep an open mind on that point. I know that there are pros and cons, but I hope he will keep his mind open to the necessity for some flexibility which will allow of the local education authority which is only responsible for Part III being able to deal with the whole problem.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will not enlarge upon
this. He himself has an Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. COVE: I will just mention it, as I do not know whether it will be reached under the operation of the Guillotine. I am getting in as many of the points as I possibly can, in order that the Minister may have his mind open to the problem. Undoubtedly, every one in this House will agree that the continued education of the children who are unemployed is absolutely necessary both for themselves and in the wider interests of the nation. We gave evidence of complete sincerity when we coupled the raising of the school-age with some assistance in the way of maintenance grant. That policy is not adopted by the Government. The policy of junior instruction centres has been substituted for it. These centres do a very fine piece of work undoubtedly of a curative kind when they save the children—I have seen them—from the worst effects of unemployment, but they cannot make a constructive contribution to the needs of the nation, or even to the needs of industry. But, in spite of their defects, for instance, that a boy may be here to-day and gone to-morrow, that you cannot determine a long-term system of education, that you cannot develop your junior instruction centres to meet the need of modern industry—in spite of all their defects, we on this side say very definitely that in every area, and for every child unemployed, provision should be made for their continued education, and, in the circumstances of the Bill, should be provided for in junior instruction centres.

4.11 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I hope that nothing I shall say will be taken as a reflection upon the Minister. On the contrary, I think that we owe him a great debt of gratitude for his recognition in this Bill of the vital importance of the education of these young persons. In fact, I will go further and say that it is a great victory for the Ministry of Labour. They have stepped into the real gap left by the Board of Education, who have been quiescent about a policy, afraid to progress, and not been ready with a plan. Everybody who cares for the welfare of these young persons must be grateful, therefore, to the Ministry of Labour filling up the gap left by the Board. Of course the hon. Member
above the Gangway is right. It would be, of course, far more satisfactory to this great inflow of young persons in the next three or four years, this great army between 14 and 18 years of age pressing into the already overcrowded labour market, to stem that inflow, to keep them at school, to plan, not a make-shift system, but a real educational policy, to prevent this overcrowding in the already overcrowded labour market. In saying that, I do hope it will not be suggested that we are ungrateful to the Minister of Labour for putting this problem into the forefront of the Unemployment Bill. It is a recognition of the co-relation of the two problems, of the fact that they are inter-connected, and that you cannot divorce one from the other. For that reason, we are grateful.
I remember in 1930 the great effort we made during the Labour Government to persuade Miss Margaret Bondfield to put an obligation on the Government to provide courses all over the country, so that wherever there was a young person out of work, the class, the school, the training centre would be available. We met with a good deal of opposition, but we eventually persuaded Miss Bondfield. She capitulated with grace, as we would expect her to do, as a result. She took on the obligation of providing centres, and they were started. It was a good battle worth winning, and if every successful battle brought such good results, whether it meant a Minister giving way or not, I should be glad to take part. I hope that we are going to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education and to stir up in him a desire to rid the Ministry of Labour of this work. I am going to make the bold statement that I believe the Minister of Labour would be only too willing to hand over this work to the right Department, namely, the Board of Education. That Department is paid to educate and train children. There is something rather cynical in seeing the President of the Board of Education merely a passenger in this Bill. I think that his name is mentioned only once.
Good work has been done by these training centres during the last three years. Everybody who has seen them in operation knows their value, limited though it be, and it would be a disaster if they were closed down. That is the
greatest tribute to their work. It is recognised that they are helping to save from the wreck of our industrial life a number of young persons at a very critical stage. I have in my mind one centre in the north-east of London. When it was opened there was a good deal of opposition and resentment among a lot of the young persons at having to attend such a course. They regarded it rather as a reflection that they should be dragged back to school after they had gone out into the labour market and for a time earned their living. After a short experience, however, their whole attitude changed. These centres depend on the headmaster and the staff, and sympathy and understanding are needed. It does not want too much—and this is no reflection on a great profession—of the ordinary attitude of the school master. If the head of an institution of the character mentioned is to be a success, he must put himself in the position of these young persons and act as their guide, philosopher and friend. After a few months, the attitude of the young people in the training centre I have mentioned changed, and enthusiasm took its place. The centre is almost run by the young people themselves, and committees are formed to administer it. At one centre they have even succeeded in forming an old boys' club, which I had the honour and privilege of taking round the House of Commons on one occasion.
Though these centres are under the Ministry of Labour, they are run by the local education authorities, and, on the whole, the Ministry of Labour has helped them in every way with a desire to make the course a success. Many of these young people have found in the light of experience that they made a mistake in their early life in being, through financial considerations, drawn into blind alley occupations. Many of them have revealed talents at these centres, and have shown that it is possible to develop—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am loath to interrupt the hon. Baronet's panegyrics, but I cannot see how he is using them as an argument that these centres should be handed over to the Board of Education.

Sir P. HARRIS: Perhaps my panegyrics rather suggest the opposite, but I hope
to be able to show that if they are to be efficient, the right authority is not the Ministry of Labour, but the Board of Education. The real difficulty is that the numbers are constantly fluctuating owing to the needs and demands of industry. When times are good, the numbers are small, and when times are bad these courses expand in number. In one centre which I have in mind, they had a staff of six or eight instructors a year ago, but now there are only about 30 or 40 children and the centre is able to justify only two instructors. It will be clear to the Minister that if this system of training is to be a real success we must have competent, able and efficient instructors. If we are to obtain them, they must be sure that they will have permanent employment. The real difficulty has been to expand and contract the training staff according to the needs and requirements of industry. Of course, that is a great argument for keeping young persons at school where they are in a properly organised educational machine, where the whole organisation is complete, and where the buildings and staff are available. If we are to have an elastic system that will meet the needs of industry, it is vital that it should be part of the educational organisation. The teachers should be part of the educational staff and on the superannuation fund, and should not be temporary. We shall not get good men and women for this work unless they are given permanent employment and the status of a teacher with superannuation.
This work should be done by the Board of Education; the more it is investigated, the stronger is the case for that. I hope the work will be recognised as a part of education and not as part of unemployment. It would enable the local authorities to set up a proper organisation to train the right teachers, and, what is perhaps more important than anything, to have the proper buildings. I am informed that in London they are now having to improvise buildings apart from the ordinary education system. Such buildings are always unsatisfactory, especially when we are dealing with unemployed persons. The first requirement to success is proper handicraft classes and manual training, and that means at once proper equipment, which is impossible in temporary makeshift buildings.
Though I give the Minister every credit for taking on this work and for his imagination and wisdom in seeing that it will not go by default, I hope that he will be willing to treat sympathetically any Amendments to hand over the work to the Minister who should be responsible for it, namely, the President of the Board of Education.

4.25 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): This discussion has spread over different aspects of this question which go beyond the Amendment immediately before us, but I do not regret that in the least, and I hope that I shall be able to deal with the points that have been raised. The effect of this and the other Amendments consequent upon it is to make it obligatory on the local education authorities to submit proposals for these courses in every place. That clearly seems to me to go rather too far, because, taken at its face value, and literally, it would mean that every education authority would have to submit proposals for these courses of instruction regardless altogether of whether there were any boys and girls unemployed. It goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the object which the hon. Gentleman who moved it has in view. There is nothing between us in the object we have in view. We both want to secure that in every reasonable case where these instructional courses would be likely to do useful work it will be obligatory on the local education authorities to submit proposals. It may be that the words in the Bill do leave it a little doubtful as to whether or not these proposals should be guided entirely by numbers, and make it too easy for local education authorities to escape their obligations. I will make this offer to the hon. Member. If he cares to put down an Amendment on Report stage which will make it clear that these authorities shall submit proposals in cases where they are necessary, then I will see, so far as I can, that that Amendment is taken, because I will put my name to it. I hope my object is perfectly plain. It is that in every case where these courses can reasonably be asked for the education authorities shall submit proposals. So much for the actual Amendment.
The hon. Member went on to discuss generally the question of juvenile in-
structional centres, and I should like at once to thank the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) for what he said about both the work of those centres and the Ministry of Labour. He has, I think, a true appreciation of what we are trying to do, and was good enough to say that what we have done in the past has been of the greatest possible service in the interests of the boys and girls themselves. A great part of the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and some parts of the speech of the hon. Baronet were directed to showing that the school-leaving age ought to be raised from 14 to 15 or 16, or whatever it may be. I want to say quite plainly that I have caused this Bill to be drafted in such a way that there is nothing in it to prejudice that question one way or the other.
I read with great care the evidence on the subject taken by the Royal Commission, including the evidence of the Association of Education Committees. It is clear that they were suspicious—when they were discussing the question of the closing of the gap—that by giving their assent to the proposals to close the gap they might in some way be prejudicing the question of the raising of the school age. They regard the age between 14 and 16—I am neither quarrelling with their idea nor accepting it—as a potential age for education and not for industry. One of them, indeed, used the phrase, "The educational sanctity of the age between 14 and 16." It was, therefore, a great satisfaction to me when I received a letter from this Association of Education Committees on 23rd January which seemed to show that they had seen that their suspicions with regard to the prejudging or the prejudicing of the raising of the school age had been unfounded. The letter reads:
I am directed by the executive committee of the Association of Education Committees to give you an assurance of the loyal co-operation of the local education authorities in this country in administering the provisions relating to education embodied in the Unemployment Bill when those provisions are in operation and in making the working of those provisions as successful as possible.
They go on to say, as they have a right to do, that they still hold the view that the interests of the children would be better served by raising the school age
to 15. I would point out that there is nothing in this Bill which would prevent anyone, whatever his views about the school age, from giving whole-hearted support to what we are doing in the matter of these juvenile instructional courses.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Does that letter cover also the views of the County Councils Association?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, the Association of Education Committees. Feeling the enormous responsibility which rests on the State and on the Minister of Labour to ensure that something shall be done for these children when they leave school, the moment this Bill was printed I took the course of submitting to the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment, of which Lord Goschen is Chairman, a series of questions in which I asked them what advice they could give me in order to ensure that these courses should be as useful as possible and what recommendations they could make to ensure that they should fulfil the purpose we all have in mind. I received a unanimous report on 20th January last, and I was so anxious that that report should be before this Committee to-day that I had it printed, and it was available for hon. Members last Friday. This Advisory Council is an extremely valuable aid to any Government and any Minister. It comprises representatives of the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Association of Education Committees, and the London County Council—each of them having two representatives; representatives of the Federation of Education Committees of Wales and Monmouth, the National Confederation of Employers Associations, the Trades Union Congress General Council, four representatives of teachers' organisations and representatives of the Juvenile Advisory Committees and the London Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment. It will be agreed that any report from them is worthy of the most careful consideration by this House.

Mr. MAXTON: I have just been to the Vote Office to get a copy of the report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I find that it is not a Parliamentary Paper. He said that he had taken steps to get it into our hands. It is rather difficult for hon. Members to get a non-Parliamentary Paper.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am sorry to hear that, and I will see what can be done. It was published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, and I think it can be obtained free by any Member who wants it. I did my utmost to see that it was made available at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. COVE: What does the report say?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not suppose the hon. Member wants me to read it, but the Council set forth a scheme which they think should be adopted for junior instruction centres. They make certain recommendations with regard to the establishment, the general purposes of the scheme, the different types of courses and the arrangements for boys and girls with special qualifications; and so on. It has been suggested by Members like the hon. Baronet that these centres should be under the Board of Education and not the Ministry of Labour. On that I would point out that steps have already been taken to secure the closest possible co-operation with the Board of Education. The Bill provides that the Minister shall not approve any proposals submitted to him unless they are in accord with a scheme made by him with the consent of the Treasury after consultation with the Board of Education. It is a matter of opinion whether these centres should be under the Board of Education or Ministry of Labour, and I am going to give my reasons why I think they should be under the Ministry of Labour. But I think we shall all agree that one Department should be responsible and not two, and that there ought to be no divided authority between the President of the Board of Education and the Minister of Labour.
I wish to put before the Committee one or two considerations which I think will persuade them, as they have persuaded me, that the Minister of Labour is the appropriate Minister. First of all, this system of juvenile instructional centres has been in existence now for something like 10 years, and we have had tribute after tribute to the way in which the work has been carried out. A tribute was paid by the Royal Commission, we have just heard a tribute from the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, and there has been an increasing volume of appreciation of what has been done. I
do not know how many hon. Members have visited these centres, but I myself have seen a good many of them, and have been immensely impressed by the way in which the teachers are carrying out their most responsible and difficult duties. The Goschen Report said in paragraph 3, on page 5:
It is natural, with the large number of different authorities, that varying views should be expressed, but the general consensus of opinion among authorities was undoubtedly in favour of a continuance of the present scheme without any material alteration. The most important direction in which changes have been recommended is towards greater elasticity in the administration and financial control of the scheme.
My point is that the Ministry of Labour have had experience of these centres for a considerable number of years, and the evidence is that we have discharged that duty in a way which has earned the commendation of those who have had to consider this question. This service, and the use that we make of it, depend very largely upon employment or unemployment, because the establishment of a centre may be determined, and should be determined, by the conditions and the prospects of employment in particular districts. It is essential to link up the question of instruction and the conditions at the centres with the question of finding work for the boys and girls who are at the centres. The establishment of centres is bound up, in regard to the procedure, with the payment of benefit in the case of insured juveniles. In the case of those who are not insured the question of employment or unemployment, particularly with regard to girls, is a very important factor. It is very relevant in this connection, that, if the authorities exercise their powers under the Choice of Employment Act, they do so under the central supervision of the Ministry of Labour. The Minister of Labour is responsible centrally for the arrangements, whether the work is done by the local education committees or by the Employment Exchanges—in some areas the education, committees do it and in others it is done by the Ministry of Labour. In all cases he is responsible for the way in which the Act is administered, because he has to find the money, he has to accept responsibility for the Act, and he has to answer questions in regard to its operation.
The object of these courses is, as I have stated and as the Goschen Committee pointed out, both educational and industrial. What I am clear about is that, although we are responsible, we shall and must work in the closest possible co-operation with the Board of Education. There is one further quotation which I want to make from the Goschen Report. Paragraph 19 says:
We agree with the recommendation we made in our First Report that the instruction provided at Junior Instruction Centres and Classes should not take the form of training for specific occupations, but that, for the majority of pupils, it should be mainly practical in character. Subject to these general considerations, discretion should be allowed to Education Authorities to develop their own ideas according to conditions in each area and to the type of boys and girls in attendance.
In my belief, experience has shown that the most appropriate Minister to have direction and control over these juvenile instruction courses is the Minister of Labour, for the reasons that I have given, and because of their close connection with industry and the placing of juveniles in employment; but it is equally important that the Minister should act in the closest co-operation with, and obtain what assistance, advice and help he can from, the Board of Education in every possible direction.
I have endeavoured to justify my belief that these courses have fulfilled a very useful purpose. We are determined that they shall be extended to cover, so far as practicable, every boy and girl who may need to have recourse to them. By so doing, and by placing a statutory duty upon the local education authority to provide such courses, we have made a very great advance on anything that has been done before. We are fulfilling what I believe to be a primary duty of the Government at the present time, which is that they should do all that they possibly can to meet the tragedy, beyond belief and beyond compare, of boys and girls going straight from school to unemployment, with nobody to look after them or to accept responsibility for them, but left at the outset of their lives with a handicap that may last throughout the whole course of their future careers.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I understand from your Ruling, Captain Bourne, that we are discussing two of the major
Amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), one of which would make training centres available for all juveniles who are unemployed, and the second of which deals with the question of central responsibility. Our view is, as my hon. Friend said earlier in the Debate, that this is the wrong way to deal with the problem which faces us. The Minister closed upon a note in which he deplored the fact that children walked straight out of school on to the streets without any employment. That is the situation to-day. There are not enough jobs to go round. Although it may be true that a substantial proportion of juveniles obtain temporary employment as soon as they leave school, there are numbers in the most distressed areas who walk out of school, and the State ceases to have any care for them. The right way to deal with the situation is not to allow juveniles to go into the over-stocked labour market, but to raise the school-leaving age.
I venture this prediction: The longer we delay raising the school-leaving age the higher will that age have to be raised when we tackle the job. There is not the slightest doubt that raising the school-leaving age to 15 might have been satisfactory two years ago, but it is not so to-day. If this question is not dealt with in the next two years, we might find ourselves driven by the adult population to keep everybody out of employment until the age of 18. I am satisfied that there is no hope of dealing with the unemployment problem by tinkering with it along these lines. The only way to face it is boldly to say that the young, immature, unwanted, cheap, inexperienced worker should be kept out of industry altogether. The Government are not choosing that course. They are choosing what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon called the third-rate one—it is probably the 15th rate—of establishing training centres.
Our first series of Amendments is to make the suggestion that if the Minister believes in training centres he ought to provide them for all children who are out of work. He makes what is described as a concession—and no doubt my hon. Friend will say what he thinks about it—that would not meet the point. It is a test of the intention of the Government to care for the unemployed juveniles. It
is no good saying that you can care for them when they are measured by thousands but that you do not care for them when they only exist in tens. If the Government have taken this problem to heart, if their heart is bleeding about the plight of the unemployed juveniles, and if they think that training centres are the way to deal with the situation, they ought to have elaborated a system whereby every unemployed child could have the advantage of them. This is a Bill described by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary in the most wonderful terms. I used to think that they were modest men, but after their description of their own Bill as the most glorious for generations, I thought that they must have lost some elements of their modesty since they went back on to that bench. If the Bill is intended as a permanent Measure, if it is, so to speak, laying out the plan of our development in this field for the next five or 10 years, we must have regard to all the implications of the proposal. That is why the proposal for raising the school-leaving age ought to have been included in it.
We are apprehensive with regard to the Minister's proposal to keep to himself central control of the training centres. No Department of State ever willingly cedes any territory to another Department; we can take that as a fundamental principle of the art of administration. When the right hon. Gentleman's Department was originally established 15 years ago, all that it was able to take to itself were two functions which the Board of Trade were willing to relinquish. Before the War, when the National Insurance Bill came along, many people who were in favour of provision against sickness among working-people had the greatest doubts about the method proposed for doing it. They foresaw what has happened. We now have a public health service on the one hand and, on the other, a large vested interest calling itself National Health Insurance, and both touch each other at a 100 points. They will place some Minister in the very near future in the position of having to knit them into one public health system. What is the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman? Here is the Minister of Education primarily, but not absolutely, responsible for the educational system of the country, and here is
the Minister of Labour dealing with people who have left school and have entered the industrial field. Some of them have walked straight into unemployment, some have walked straight into jobs, but sooner or later he finds them on his hands, and he says, "These people are now outside the educational field and in the industrial field, and therefore I ought to be the person to look after them through my training centres."
He adduced as evidence in favour of that suggestion the fact that the Ministry of Labour centres in the last 10 years have worked very well; and he went on to say that the teachers were carrying out their duties extraordinarily well in difficult circumstances. They would have carried them out equally well had they been under the Board of Education. But the situation is different to-day. During the first 10 years we have been merely nibbling at this problem, but now, if the Government are to be believed, we are to prepare ourselves for a very considerable establishment of centres up and down the country—a large network of training centres dealing with juveniles under 18 who during the next few years ought to be in the educational sphere and not in the industrial sphere. Although it is true that the right hon. Gentleman says that this is going to be done through the local education authorities, he will be the real central authority.
I have two points of substance to raise. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the arrangements to be made are to be made in consultation with the Board of Education, but the proviso to Clause 13 indicates the kind of relationship that there will be between the Treasury, which is the top dog, and the Board of Education, which is the under dog. It says that:
The Minister shall not approve any proposals …. unless they are in accord with a scheme made by him with the consent of the Treasury after consultation with the Board of Eduction.
Having had consultations with other Departments myself, I know that that might mean much or it might mean little, but I know that the consent of the Treasury means everything, and I am not satisfied that the words of the Bill are going to yield results of the kind that many people who are interested in the question of juvenile unemployment would
expect. Although the right hon. Gentleman may understand the labour problem, yet, in putting people into training centres, he is dealing with a field of future large-scale experiment which he has not dealt with in the past, and, if I were a betting man, I should be prepared to wager that the Treasury would get the better of him; and I am not satisfied that they would not get the better to at least the same extent of the Board of Education. Supposing that the right hon. Gentleman, in the next five years, gets all his training centres, once they are in the hands of the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Labour will fight to keep them; there is not the slightest doubt about that. As I said earlier, no Department willingly relinquishes any scalps that hang at its belt. They will want to keep them, and I can see, within the next five years, these training centres becoming a new vested interest in the way of the proper educational advance of the young people of the country.
If they were under the Board of Education, I can imagine a President of the Board of Education realising that sooner or later large numbers of these people were going to fall into his net, making his plans accordingly, and doing nothing that would militate against the ultimate entry into or continuance in the schools of children over 14 or 15 years of age. I can see him fitting his training centres into a general educational plan. I can see him seeing that equipment and so on was being so devised that it might be utilised for full-time secondary education up to the age of 16. But—and this is not personally against the right hon. Gentleman—I cannot for the life of me see the Minister of Labour, however assiduous he is in his duties, doing that. On the contrary, he has admitted that his point of view is different, and in five years from now these centres will hang like millstones round our necks; they will be a definite barrier to further educational progress. The right hon. Gentleman—and this rather confirms my point—talked about the curriculum; he talked about having regard to different employment conditions, about having regard to the prospects of employment, and the importance of linking up the instruction and curriculum with placing and finding work. Members on this side of the Committee are suspicious of these terms. We have that suspicion which all of us have
of all Governments, but these words appear to us to be especially dangerous. All our trade union organisations fear the possible use of instructional and training centres for the training of cheap, half-trained labour which will enter into competition with the fully trained unemployed labour that is surplus to the market.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about elasticity in the curriculum, and I agree with that, because I do not want to try to make these university colleges; I want to make them something that young people in this very unstable age would find of interest and value to them. But, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to have sole regard to different employment conditions, the prospects of employment and the linking up of these centres with placing and finding work, I am satisfied that they are going to be centres for training cheap, immature labour to take adult jobs, especially in developing industries, and I should hope that that is not what the House would wish. The right hon. Gentleman told us at the end of his speech that this was a great advance. A greater advance would have been the raising of the school-leaving age. Whether this is an advance or not lies on the knees of the gods. We are afraid that it may prove to be, not a step in advance, but ultimately a step backwards. It is not that we are in any way criticising the humanitarian feelings of the Minister; it is that this departure is one which will inevitably, in our view, lead not so much to helping the children as to retarding their progress in the future. I hope that hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee will realise that this is not a small, narrow, party point, but a point of very considerable substance, indeed one in connection with which the Government might well take off the Whips and allow Members of the Committee to vote freely according to their conscience as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is right in his foreshadowed enormous development of these training centres, or whether in the circumstances the right thing would not be to let the responsibility for these centres rest with his colleague in the Cabinet, the President of the Board of Education, rather than with the Minister of Labour.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the hon. Baronet the Member for
Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), I think I ought to point out to the Committee that the discussion has gone somewhat beyond the two main points which were, very properly, referred to in his speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). Indeed, I think that that was inevitable if the arguments were to be properly put. I merely wish to safeguard the position of the Chair by pointing out that, if the discussion continues on these rather broad lines, the arguments must not be repeated when we come to a discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.10 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I want to make a few comments on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). His panacea for the difficulties with which it is proposed to deal by a much more general establishment of training centres—and the Amendment on the Paper would make it obligatory on the Minister to do so in all cases and for all classes, whether juveniles or others—is the immediate raising of the school-leaving age to 18. I want the Committee to consider what that would do. It depends entirely upon the class of education that is to be given between the ages of 14 and 18. If it is to be a literary education, the result will be to educate an army of potential clerks for whom there will be no employment, because, the more clerical work becomes mechanised in our banks, insurance companies and institutions of that kind, the less work will there be for clerks who used to look to those institutions for employment. If, on the other hand, the education is to be vocational and industrial, with a view to fitting the young persons concerned for earning their living in the industries of the country, I can see very little difference in result, as far as the unemployed young people are concerned, between what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield is suggesting and what is suggested in this Bill. They will get precisely the same education in the one case as in the other, though in the training centres it will be more concentrated on trying to fit them for something which will earn them a livelihood in the future. Therefore, the general raising
of the school age to 18 will not get us out of the difficulty.
On one point, however, which the right hon. Gentleman made, I am in very considerable agreement with him. I should oppose this Amendment root and branch, because it goes further than the Bill and makes practically mandatory the establishment of these training centres all over the country forthwith. In many parts of the country, particularly in my own constituency, there is in certain industries an immense proportion of unemployed people. That applies particularly to the furniture trade, and the manufacture of furniture after a fashion by young people and others who are trained at these centres is precisely one of the favourite jobs there. I have very great sympathy with the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association. The branch of that body in my constituency has represented to me that the establishment there of a training centre where instruction in the making of furniture was one of the principal lines would merely be half-training a number of young people. It would be nothing like the old system of a full apprenticeship under the supervision of competent workmen, but would merely be turning out a number of half-baked and probably cheap furniture tradesmen to compete with the 30 per cent. of skilled workmen who are now unemployed in the district. It is, therefore, very necessary that the education authorities should consider precisely the state of employment in their different districts, and whether, when they have trained these young people at the centres, they will be doing them any good, or merely turning them out only to find themselves in a congested industry where there is already immense unemployment among skilled workers who are perfectly competent and have been waiting, perhaps for years, for a job.
I shall certainly not support the Amendment, nor can I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield that the difficulty can be got over by keeping these young people at school without telling us what they are going to learn during the further four years that they would be at school, or whether it is going to make any difference at all to them ultimately. I am not opposing the proposal in the Bill, but I put forward a plea for very earnest considera-
tion on the part of both the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education in starting these training centres—not merely to take an empty building, but two or three people there, and say, "This is a training centre." I want to give training in certain specific trades. It is an enormously important thing to have training in those trades where young people will have some chance of earning a living.

Mr. COVE: They are not training centres. I think the hon. Baronet is probably confusing training centres for unemployed above 18 with those for unemployed below 18. These are junior instruction centres, and the plea of the Minister all the time is that they are not to be training centres in the ordinary meaning of the word.

Sir B. PETO: I may have used the wrong phrase. At any rate, they are centres for giving courses of instruction to young people. I presume they are places where they are going to be trained in order to do something. I have no doubt the hon. Member is right. He knows a great deal more about it than I do. If there is some real distinction between the two things, I adhere to the exact words in the Bill. They are "places where courses of instruction and training will be given." That is the marginal note of the Clause. I support the Clause as it stands, although I wanted to enter that caveat on behalf of these young people that we are not going to find any solution for them by merely giving them courses of instruction. It wants very careful consideration what you are going to instruct them in. I am equally certain that the specific of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, which is going to get all over all difficulties, of including in the Bill compulsory provisions to keep all these young people at school, without telling us how that is going to improve their chances in life, is certainly no solution of the difficulty of juvenile unemployment.

5.18 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I think possibly the hon. Baronet is still suffering under some slight misapprehension. The Minister, when quoting from the Fifth Report of the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment, referred specifically to para-
graph 19, in which the Council say that they agree that the instruction should not take the form of training for specific occupations, but that for the majority of pupils it should be mainly practical in character. Therefore, it is not our intention that these junior instruction centres should give any training for a specific industry. If the hon. Baronet will look at Appendix II of the report, page 18, he will see set out the kind of training that the council had in mind.

Sir B. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman give us a little further information? What are these practical courses if they are not to relate to any use which will enable young persons to earn their living?

Mr. HUDSON: It would be detaining the Committee unduly if I read it all out, but I should be glad to hand the hon. Baronet my copy of the Report. Perhaps he will read it during the next speech or two.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: To me this question of instruction centres is, to a very large extent, a fad which has been played about with by Ministers of Education and others for many years, with very limited practical results. In my own teaching days I had some experience of working in some of the first tentative efforts in this direction, and felt how very limited the value of this education was. I have been in close touch since with classes in the West of Scotland which have been run under the Ministry of Labour in Scotland, financed by the Ministry of Labour but controlled and directed by the education authority. It seems to me that before we start this type of instructional centre we should first start to train teachers to do this kind of work and, before we start to train the teachers to train the youngsters, we should start to get some idea in our heads of what we want a human being to be and what we want him to do, because, in my opinion, these instruction centres are a pure case of the blind trying to lead the not so blind youngsters. That is my contribution on the general issue. I am not speaking from abstract theory, but from a contact with this educational experimentation, which has been going on now for something like 30 or 40 years, with the poor kid as the corpus vile who is to
suffer from our kindly desires to reform him into some other kind of human being than we are ourselves.
I am really not so concerned as to whether control shall lie with the Minister of Education or the Minister of Labour. When I consider the two of them side by side, it is a Hobson's choice. I am not satisfied that either of them has the specialised knowledge for the effective running of such instruction centres. When I say that I do not distinguish them from the general run of humanity, because I do not believe there is the knowledge available anywhere and, therefore, it is a matter of very small moment to me whether the Minister of Education or the Minister of Labour takes responsibility for running the instruction courses. Nor am I greatly concerned as to where the book-keeping entry for the cost shall lie. It will come out of the Treasury. But I want to have some idea as to what the rate of expenditure per child taught is to be. We found in the last phase of this business, that in Glasgow the Ministry of Labour were prepared to pay 100 per cent. of the cost of these centres. I can remember how those in charge of Glasgow education jumped for joy at such a very generous allowance. Then the Minister of Labour came along and said, "But that 100 per cent. that we are going to pay must not exceed a certain amount per head of the pupils taught," with the result that the thing was run on the cheapest and nastiest plan—so much for elementary schools, so much for advanced division or central schools and so much for secondary education. I want to know what the level is to be for the instruction centres. I want particularly to know why the Minister bars out from himself the possibility of paying expenses of young persons attending instruction centres. He allows himself the right to pay expenses for those over 18 attending instruction centres, but he does not allow the payment of expenses for those under 18.
When one turns to the report of the Advisory Committee and sees the type of instruction that is recommended, it involves educational visits of one kind or another, and open-air exercise. An intimate friend of mine had charge of one of these courses in Glasgow. She taught some 20 or 30 girls. She tried to carry
out the widest educational ideas that she could. She took them to visit some of our great municipal enterprises, to local swimming ponds and to public parks. She sometimes got a friendly cinematograph proprietor to arrange a special show. She sometimes got a benevolent owner of a factory to provide the youngsters with a tour round their works and some refreshment in the middle of the day. But every time she was arranging any one of these things she had first of all to consider the terrible problem that to go to these places involved a penny tram fare, and that was a serious consideration to these youngsters. This teacher could only do the work effectively by imposing on all her friends for donations and subscriptions to the travelling fund of her pupils, who were supposed to be 100 per cent. maintained by the Ministry of Labour. These courses are bound to be more costly than ordinary educational work if they are going to be properly done, and the Minister must not lay down a meagre rate of cost and he must not bar out the payment of expenses on a reasonable scale, whether it is for travelling costs in connection with instruction or for support. Imagine a boy in one of these centres going out to play football, as he is encouraged to do in the Report, equipping himself with a football jersey and a pair of trousers out of 2s. a week allowance! Fancy a girl going to a gymnasium—which is down in the instructional course—and providing herself with a pair of shoes and a gymnastic costume!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has an Amendment on the Paper which raises this point. He must postpone that discussion till then.

Mr. MAXTON: I was remembering your warning that those who did not get their points in now would have a very thin chance of doing so. I emphasize that if the Minister of Labour insists upon resisting the Amendment and takes the main responsibility upon his own shoulders, he must face up to that responsibility in a somewhat more generous spirit than has been evident in the recent administration. The whole of this stuff in the past has been cheap and nasty. The inspiration of it is, to be kind to the poor—the poor, dear poor! That is the conception. That is all
wrong. You do not educate people in that way. You have to get into the minds of these youngsters that they are responsible citizens with the rest of us, and have a right to play, to work and to use their brains. You have to see to it that their courses of instruction are run on such a line that they are not regarded in the educational world as some cheap and nasty way of dealing with the poor unfortunates and down-and-outs of the community; and to secure that they are really educational centres with a dignity, and not something which is a cross between education and the poor house. I hope that the Minister will give his very serious attention to this matter. An educational system is there which has been developed for a long period. No one says that it has reached its final form of perfection, but the educational system which is proper for the whole run of the community is the educational system to which unemployed youngsters should be directed.

5.32 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: On a point of explanation. Arising out of my speech, the Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to furnish me with a copy of the Fifth Report of the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment for my inspection, and he referred me to pages 18 and 19. I should like, therefore, to let the Committee know what I find on page 19. The committee said:
It is not necessary in this Memorandum to give an exhaustive list of subjects, but it may not be out of place to mention merely, in the suggestive sense, a few groups of such subjects as may be appropriately included in the Curriculum:
(a) Woodwork.
Furniture repairing and making of small articles for the home, e.g., stools, cabinets for wireless sets, etc., pot stands, small cupboards, bookshelves, etc.
Decorative woodwork; fretwork, carving; turning; picture framing; staining; varnishing and painting.
If that is not turning out a half-baked furniture maker, I do not know what is.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. COVE: My main purpose in rising is to try to find out, if I can, the effect of the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to my Amendment, but, first of all, I should like to say a word to my hon. Friend the Member for
Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I am sure that, if he looks into the problem again, he will alter his mind as to whether these centres ought to be under the Board of Education or under the Ministry of Labour. If he will come down to my division he will find that the boys who go to the juvenile instruction centre are housed in a building which has already been condemned by the Board of Education, but which is satisfactory to the Ministry of Labour. It is a shocking building, dirty and inadequate for its needs. My hon. Friend would find that that is not the only instance where the Ministry of Labour have accepted such buildings. If they were under the Board of Education it would be possible to apply the Act providing for the feeding of school children in respect of those boys and girls, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with that. What does the Minister of Labour mean by the concessions which I gather he is trying to make this afternoon? As I understood him, he said that our Amendment puts the duty too rigidly upon the local education authority, that there is not enough flexibility in it, and that, therefore, he is prepared to consider words which will impose the duty upon the local education authority of providing these junior instruction centres where it is reasonable that they should be erected. What does he mean by that?
I am rather troubled, not only by the words of this Bill, but by the finance governing the junior instruction centres. He is estimating, through the Actuary, that he will get 100,000 unemployment children into the junior instruction centres. Does he mean that by means of the words he wants to put in he will make provision for more than 100,000 being sent to the junior instruction centres, and, if so, how many does he envisage in the immediate future for whom he will be able to make provision? If hon. Members look at the finance of the scheme, I think that they will find that for every expansion of provisions for junior instruction centres there is a corresponding weight of expense on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Actuary has balanced the fund with a certain income and expenditure. One of the tremendous drawbacks, as far as the expansion of these centres is concerned, is the fact that every expansion of any magnitude in the provision of junior
instruction centres will mean that the fund will become unbalanced in that respect, and will not be solvent. They will be a burden on the fund. Therefore, the fact that they are paid for out of the Insurance Fund will in itself, I am afraid—I am suspicious, anyhow—prevent the expansion of the junior instruction system to anything like the degree to which it ought to expand in order to meet the problem of the number of children unemployed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) pointed out that the Treasury has a much stronger word to say than the Board of Education in this respect. The consent of the Treasury has to be obtained. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to let us know something more definite as to what he means. Our position is plain. We have said, "Raise the school age." It is clear that the Government do not intend to raise the school age. I admit that the words in the Bill do not prevent the raising of the school age. The Minister of Labour has given us the words, but the Ministry of Labour retain the power and the substance. When the whole system of juvenile instruction centres are argued, we shall have the condition of things which was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. Vested interests will have grown up, and the fact that these centres are established will undoubtedly be a bar to the raising of the school age. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) may shake her head, but it is clear from the answer which she herself received, that this is the policy of the Government.

Viscountess ASTOR: Not the Government's policy.

Mr. COVE: I should like the Minister to tell us something about the general conditions which are to obtain in these centres, the numbers he is going to have in them, and the numbers necessary before a junior instruction centre is erected. What is he to do about the tenure of those who are employed? The teachers employed in these centres, in almost every case, I think, have no security of tenure at all. They can be employed to-day and dismissed to-morrow. The
scales of salaries paid are in many instances inadequate. They are undercutting labour.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now really raising a discussion which should be raised on the Estimates of the Ministry.

Mr. COVE: I submit that it would be a good thing, if the Minister is to have our whole-hearted support for these centres, that we should know exactly what he intends both as to the numbers that will be needed for a centre to be erected, and also as far as the organisation is concerned.

5.41 p.m.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: I came down to this Debate this afternoon with very strong views with regard to the raising of the school age, and those of us who represent Scottish constituencies are fortified in those views by a very able statement sent to us by the Educational Institution of Scotland. I listened with the greatest attention to the comprehensive and conciliatory speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and I was greatly impressed by the statement which he read by a well-known body called the Association of Educational Authorities, representing, I have no doubt, all the educational authorities in England. They have satisfied themselves, after a very careful discussion of the two questions, the raising of the school age now, and the strengthening and broadening of the instruction centres, that if they agree to support the Minister of Labour in his idea of extending juvenile instructional centres, it in no way debars the question they have at heart, namely, the extending of the school age. As an old Parliamentarian I am satisfied that those of us who believe in extending the school age should know that in a Bill of this kind which deals with unemployment, it would not be appropriate to lay the burden upon another Minister—who would be the President of the Board of Education—of extending the school age.

Mr. MAXTON: Presumably this matter would be discussed by the Cabinet, and the Cabinet could easily have taken a decision to raise the school age.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: It is obvious that a Bill of this kind must have been discussed in its entirety by the Cabinet, but I have no doubt that the Cabinet took the view, which is the view of old Parliamentarians, that in a Bill of this kind dealing mainly with unemployment, the proper way of dealing with unemployment, whether juvenile or senior unemployment, is to carry on the main Government policy of the Unemployment Acts. The question as to the best thing to do at the present moment for boys between 14 and 18 must have been considered.

Mr. MAXTON: rose—

Sir I. MACPHERSON: Just one moment.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a sufficiently experienced Parliamentarian not to object to a point being put which has a reasonable bearing on the matter we are discussing. On the 9th November, 1933, the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education asking whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to raise the school-leaving age. The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
It is not part of the Government's policy to introduce legislation to raise the school-leaving age, but the Noble Lady will find the policy of the Government in regard to juveniles above the existing school-leaving age in the Unemployment Insurance Bill circulated to-day."—OFFICIAL OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1933; col. 301, Vol. 281.]

Sir I. MACPHERSON: That statement in no way militates against the Government's attitude to-day. The question of education and the extension of the age must be left to a later date. The problem before them at the present time is the problem of unemployment, and I make bold to say that one of the most serious aspects of that problem is the question of juvenile unemployment. I think the Government have gone a long way to meet that very difficult and very delicate situation. I have listened with very great care and attention to the able speeches delivered by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and I have not heard them decry the work of the juvenile instruction centres. They
have never said that those centres were bad. There has not been a single attack upon the work of the junior instruction centres, and when I find not only in this Bill but in the statement made by the Minister a definite assurance that these instruction centres are to be carried out by the Minister of Labour in close conjunction with the Minister of Education, I have great hopes that these centres will fulfil the high promise which they offer in dealing with the problem of unemployment.
The Minister of Labour has gone a long way in attempting to meet the Amendment. He began by expressing full sympathy with the attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Aberavon, and pointed out that if it would help matters in any way, he could conserve his right to advocate the advancement of the age as long as he was prepared to let the Minister of Labour have discretion as to the obligation placed upon the education authorities. Speaking for a rural constituency—a great many of my colleagues represent rural constituencies—I think it would be a very serious obligation to be laid upon education authorities in rural constituencies to have to create or erect junior instruction centres where there is no need for them; and I am glad to hear the Minister of Labour say that discretion may be used in cases of that kind. I hope that I have made my position clear to the Committee. I believe the day will come when there will be an extension of the school-leaving age, and that this is the appropriate and proper time for an extension of the junior instruction centres. That is the clamant need of the situation for juveniles at the present time. I am satisfied that the Government and the Minister of Labour have approached the question with a sincerity, calmness and honesty to do the best possible for the young people, and because of that spirit of conciliation and wisdom, I shall support the Bill.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. BRIANT: I take an optimistic view of this matter. It may be unwise to prophesy, but my feelings are that before a few years have passed, if this House continues, and still more am I confident if there is to be another House, we shall see an extension of the school-leaving age to 15, if not to 16. I am convinced that pressure from outside and in-
side is increasing. Recent Debates have shown that, apart from the old reasons for an increase in the school-leaving age, purely national reasons, the pressure of industrial circumstances, are such that the House will have to agree to increase the age to 15, if not to 16. If that change is coming, and I am sure it is, it is far better that we should be prepared for that day, and that we should put the work in the hands of the particular authority which will ultimately, and before very long, have to do with these children.
The psychology of the individual in connection with these training centres is of prime importance. I am not blaming the Minister of Labour or the late Minister of Labour, nor am I blaming the Employment Exchanges, but anyone who is familiar with this subject must know that among the young people there is a prejudice against the Employment Exchanges. They regard them as places where there is a close inquisition into their means, and where there happen many things which they do not like. It is unfortunate that they should believe these things, but the fact remains; whereas on the other hand the school has the goodwill of the children. They have been accustomed for many years to compulsory education, and do not object to it in the slightest. Therefore, it is far better that they should be put in touch with the particular body with which they have been in touch for so many years, which has the entire good will of the child and the parents, rather than they should be brought into contact with a body for which, wisely or unwisely, they have no great affection.
I am a little apprehensive about the tone of some of the speeches in regard to the education of children of 14 years of age. It seems to be the opinion of many that by some Divine invocation, when a child reaches the age of 14, it must not receive any more general education and that it must be either technical or instructional education. How long has it been settled, and who has settled it, that because a child happens to go to an elementary education centre he should receive a general education up to the age of 14 and that after that age the general education must cease? Why is it necessarily essential that after 14 the child must be trained in some kind
of technical education? You do not necessarily need to give technical education at that age. Up to the age of 16 the child is employed in learning how to learn, and if you give it a general education it will mean that when he goes out he will have learned something of a general character which will fit him for any occupation.
It is very easy to criticise the junior instruction centres, just as it is extremely difficult to manage them, but in spite of all criticisms they are to be congratulated heartily on the success they have obtained up to now. Even if they had been worse than they are, even if they do not realise all that we wish, I would plead for their continuance, because of their very valuable service in regard to the problem of providing useful opportunities for young people to improve themselves. Anyone who knows anything of the problems affecting the poor streets of London knows of the large number of children who are wandering about the streets, with nothing to do. It is essential that we should give them some educational interests. Perhaps there might be educational interest in a visit to the House of Commons. Whatever they do, for goodness' sake let us give them something to occupy their minds, because at the present time they are at the street corners, and there is danger that they will fall ino juvenile crime.
Two years ago I said that if you cut off the small amount of dole to the young people, although it might be quite logical to do so, you would be inevitably creating a class of boys and girls who might not have very high moral scruples, and might gravitate towards the criminal class. The figures which we now have prove that every word I said then was correct. It may be said that it is bad for a boy or girl to have too much pocket money; but if you take it all away, the temptation to go wrong is great. Young people in these circumstances have said to me. "If I cannot get money in one way, I will get it in some other way." You are putting a great strain on these young people, and if you can occupy them in a way that will help to diminish the temptation to crime, which is very great to those who have no money in their pocket, it will be a great blessing. We must remember that in the case of many of these young people who loll about the streets
there is no room in their homes for games or recreation, they have nothing to do and the temptation is so great that even those of us who may hold up our heads to-day might have surrendered to them had we been faced with such temptations in our youth.
I am grateful for what has been done, and I think the time has come when we should hand this work over to the Minister of Education, to whom it properly belongs, and let the child understand that there is nothing penal about the instruction centres. These young people, I am afraid, do regard these training centres as something penal, which they are not. I want to remove that impression from their minds and to associate the centres with education as part of their lives and part of the enjoyment of their lives, to fit them to render service to themselves and the nation. We should make a great advance if we availed ourselves of this opportunity, with the extension of the school-leaving age in sight, of handing this special work to the Minister of Education, to whom it properly belongs.

5.57 p.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I think it will be agreed by all that something ought to be done, and it requires to be done urgently, for the young people between the ages of 14 and 16. The subject that we have discussed is whether instructional centres under the control of the Minister of Labour should be continued or whether the Minister of Education should take over the education of these young people. Various criticisms have been made. It has been argued by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) that the instructional centres are at present in bad buildings. He gave one instance where the instructional centre was in a building that in no sense was suitable, and he said that if it had been in an educational centre the accommodation would have been much better. The reason why this provision is being put forward in the Bill is in order that there may be money to provide proper buildings and proper instruction. The experiment of the instructional centres has been tried and, after hearing all that has been said, I think we must agree that the experiment has proved good, that instruction centres of this sort are required and that under the Bill there will be funds to provide proper buildings and equipment.
The hon. Member who has just spoken is an expert on this subject. In many cases I believe it to be true that the boys and girls at 14 who perhaps at school have not perhaps been most suitable to take in a great deal of the education that they received are at that time psychologically in need of some sort of change. In a good many cases boys and girls of 14 are prepared for the change of going out of school, looking perhaps for employment, starting, as it were, on a new phase of their life and, while in that phase, getting some new form of definite instruction. I mention that point because the hon. Member said that psychologically they preferred to stay at school, because it was good. That may be so in some cases, but in a great many cases they want some chance at the age of 14. From that age and upwards the boy's parents consider what his future is going to be, and perhaps they may desire him to specialise in some subject because it is going to be of use to him afterwards. At that age they are generally looking forward with some particular ideas as to their training.
The suggestion has been made that this form of training in instructional centres will be cheap and nasty. I ask hon. Members to examine the Report of the Advisory Council; to look at those who served on that Council. There were representatives of the Association of Education Committees, representatives of the Trade Union Congress General Council, representatives of teachers' organisations, of the London Advisory Council and of juvenile advisory committees; and in their Report these people are definitely in favour of the scheme of instructional centres going on. They desire a continuance of the scheme without any material alteration, and say:
The most important direction in which changes have been recommended is towards greater elasticity.
It has been suggested that these centres have been made a success so far because there have been few people attending them, but now that there are to be many more juveniles to receive instruction, the whole outlook will be changed. If hon. Members will look again at the Report they will find that this point is dealt with. The Council say:
The element of compulsion will introduce a slightly different attitude.
But they still recommend that these instructional centres should be continued
to facilitate the absorption or reabsorption of boys and girls into employment as soon as an opportunity may occur.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said that we were going to train people, I think he said, in a half-hearted way for various trades, and that trade unions were suspicious of cheap immature labour being trained to take away adult jobs. Before I would seriously consider that, I would ask whether it is going to benefit the child; what is going to be the benefit of this form of training on the children? The workers of this country are not so jealous of their rights as to want to deprive younger people of an opportunity of training for their jobs. Let me again point out that five representatives of the Trades Union Congress served on the Committee, and they agree that these training centres should be continued. It has been suggested that in many of these centres trades will be taught in which there is already a great amount of unemployment, and that, therefore, it will be no good. I agree, but that is a reason for keeping in as close touch as possible with the Ministry of Labour. If these instructional centres are under the Minister of Labour, it will be his duty to see that the schemes are kept in touch with the unemployment which may exist in certain grades. It is no use having extra schemes for training boys in trades where there is already a vast amount of unemployment.
The hon. Member for Aberavon said that these schemes would be expensive and would hit depressed areas very hard. He objected to depressed areas having to put up 25 per cent. of the cost. The hon. Member is in favour of raising the school age. If the school age were raised, local authorities would have to find 50 per cent. of the cost. In this case it is only 25 per cent. Therefore, depressed areas are doing better under this scheme. The hon. Member also said that it is now definitely clear that the Government's policy is not to raise the school age. In that case, why is not the age of 14 mentioned in the Bill? In every case we find it referred to as the age up to which people are obliged to
keep their children at school; not once is the age of 14 mentioned. In every other Bill the age has been definitely mentioned, and the fact that in this Bill it is omitted, and a rather cumbersome term is inserted, implies that this is not the final scheme of the Government, that this is not the end of their policy, but that in the circumstances it is considered the best, and in the interests of the child.
I think it is well to keep these instructional courses under the Ministry of Labour, because there are other children who do not want to remain at school; they want to find work. The Ministry of Labour will be paying a large share of the cost, and the scheme will help depressed areas. We are right in keeping these courses under the control of the Minister of Labour. It does not rule out raising the school age in future, if it be advisable, and children between the ages of 14 and 16 are going to receive what, I believe, parents are asking for to-day, that is, some definite instruction, some chance to receive instruction, while they are unemployed. The fact that the employer will have to notify the Employment Exchange when a child leaves enables us to keep control of the child. If the child is not working we shall know; and when it is not working it will be attending some definite instructional centre where it will be able to develop its talents, get a new start in life, and in that way the State will get far more benefit than if we raised the school age and forced all parents to keep their children at school, and at the same time put 50 per cent. of the expenditure on depressed areas.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: It seems a very curious commentary on our present social system that we should be considering the possibility of so many thousands of young persons being unemployed. By the Amendment we are anxious to give the benefit of these instructional centres to as many children as possible, and we think that the Clause as it is, even with the concession granted by the Minister, does not do that. We are afraid that those educational authorities who are not quite so anxious about instructional centres as they ought to be; those localities where the rates are the first consideration and the welfare of the children
very often the last, will, even with the concession granted by the Minister, still be able to put considerable difficulties in the way of juvenile instructional centres. We want them to work as well as possible. A good deal has been said about these instructional centres training children for certain occupations. As a matter of fact, nothing of the sort can possibly happen. The children may get some physical exercises and discipline, and a certain amount of instruction, but we may as well look the fact in the face and realise that their main purpose is to keep them out of mischief during the time they are unfortunately unemployed. That is the damning fact in this case from an educational point of view. Strictly speaking, they are not of any educational value as they now stand.
We want to persuade the Minister that this work would be better done under the Board of Education. I am certain that, as a result of the wider experience we are likely to get under this Bill, it must inevitably hasten the day when we shall really tackle the question of raising the school age. It will be terribly expensive, far more than many hon. Members realise, but I think, after we have had actual experience, that we shall then set about doing the thing in the right way and raise the school age. A member of the Liberal party spoke about young persons standing at street corners, and suggested that this led to their becoming criminals. I deny that. From my own experience, the trouble is not that boys and girls may actually become criminals, but that they become far less effective as good citizens. The gap between 14 and 16, and the gap between 16 and 18, should be filled. Although the Government are taking certain powers by this Bill in connection with these centres, I am satisfied that the persons whom it is intended to benefit would much rather be at work. When they leave school at 14 or 15 they want to go into industry and earn their living. That is what they have in their minds. A good deal of the talk about training comes to nothing when we realise that the labour of these children is chiefly in minding a machine day after day, week after week and year after year.
A good deal of what I have heard has amazed me. Do hon. Members realise that under this system of junior instruc-
tional centres you get the students in to-day and out to-morrow? There is, therefore, no chance of doing anything at all in the way of real education. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) talked about the welfare of the child and said that it should come first. I entirely agree, but in the next breath she made the point that if the local authorities had to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of raising the school age, then the interest of the child played a very secondary part.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I merely referred to the 50 per cent. in answer to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who had said that these instructional centres would be very hard on the depressed areas because they had to pay 25 per cent. I did not give the 50 per cent. as a reason for not raising the school age but as a reply to the hon. Member. I gave the welfare of the child as my reason.

Mr. BANFIELD: I am very pleased to hear that from the hon. Member. I am sure that the sooner we get a direct vote of this House to show how many Members are prepared to fight for the raising of the school age to deal with this problem, the better it will be, because we shall know where sympathy begins and where practice comes into operation. The Amendment is directed chiefly to two points. We believe that every effort should be made to bring all local authorities under the provisions of this Clause. We have never recognised that the Clause is the best way, but if it is to be the second best let us apply it to as many children as possible. Do not let this House make the mistake of believing that the system now suggested is any effective substitute for the raising of the school age or for any scheme of education. I would sooner by far that the Board of Education took this matter in hand at the start. I am satisfied that it will be the board's task sooner or later to tackle this question.
Then there is the question of the provision of decent premises, hygienic premises such as the Board of Education will demand. If we are to have these juvenile instructional centres I hope that the Ministry of Labour will not approach the problem with the idea that any ramshackle building is good enough for these children. I hope they will realise that if they are to get the best out of this un-
satisfactory system it is better by far to equip the buildings properly and to get proper teachers to look after the students. Incidentally, I hope that the Minister will offer sufficient inducement to get the right men and women to look after these children during this critical time in their lives. That is the secret of the success of these junior instructional centres: We must have men and women who understand the everyday life of these children, who are able to sympathise with their aspirations, and their desire eventually to becomes good citizens. I would rather that the Board of Education had tackled the matter. Apparently the Minister of Labour has no intention of giving way, but it is as well for us to lay it down definitely now that we consider that education is the prerogative of the Ministry of Education.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: I rise to oppose the Amendment. It seems to me that it has been impossible to tell whether some hon. Members who have spoken have spoken for the Amendment or against it. I therefore say in advance that I am speaking against the Amendment. Let me state what I conceive to be the problem. At the present time there are about 100,000 children between 14 and 18 who are unemployed, although there are only about 70,000 who are registered. As far as I can tell only one-sixth of these are in any kind of juvenile centre, half of them being claimants and half not. In other words, only about one-sixth of the number are now in any kind of centre. Looking at the figures for the whole country, if you take London and the South-East and the South-West and Midlands, you find that the figure of juvenile unemployment is one point something. In the South-West it is a little higher. In other words juvenile unemployment is concentrated in Scotland, where the figure is 9.3. That is by far and away the highest figure. In Wales it is 8.9, in the North-West and North-East. When the accession to the numbers of the school-leavers occurs, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), and we get a total of 443,000 in 1937, we shall get a concentration of those numbers in specific areas.
I do not agree with the hon. Member who said that the problem of juvenile
unemployment is very important. It is not very important. The problem of adult unemployment is important. Juvenile unemployment is comparatively unimportant in this country at the present time, compared with the real problem, which relates to those between 18 and 50. Therefore, the really important thing is to consider whether we can insert in this Bill some provision for the withdrawal of children between 14 and 18 from the labour market. I regard that as the problem. I do not care very much whether the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Labour is the central Department. The problems raised in the Goschen Report are problems of curriculum and so on. That report is a very idealistic report. It is a report based on the best of what is. Therefore, while opposing this Amendment because it means almost nothing—this Debate is not about the most important part of the Clause—I say that the essence of the problem with which we are face to face as a country, irrespective of party, is whether it is possible to get any withdrawal of labour from the market between 14 and 18.
The point, therefore, is that this scheme must be under the Ministry of Labour, and these words which the Minister has so carefully inserted in the Bill are the key words. But everything depends entirely on whether the true interpretation of Clause 1 is adhered to, and whether the findings of the Goschen Report are adhered to. In other words, as with so many other things in the Bill, it seems to me that all depends on the administration of the Bill. There are provisions here for dealing with essential parts of the problem, that is keeping in touch with the juveniles, keeping them fit, withdrawing them from industry and apportioning the cost in a fair way. I would urge on the Minister that when these centres are multiplied, as I understand it is intended they should be, every existing building should be used. It is quite clear that this cannot be a full course of instruction; everyone admits that. But I would cut down the second part of the Clause providing training for people over 18, at any rate at Government expense. I would cut out every penny spent on those over 18 until the problem of 14 to 18 is tackled in a national way.
I feel more and more that something like the spirit with which the problem is being tackled on the Continent has to come in this country, if we are to face the 14 to 18 problem in a national way. I mean that every existing course, building and teacher that can be got hold of should be brought into a big movement to deal with the period from 14 to 18. If that is not done, what happens? We have a few juvenile centres up and down the country. I am certain from what the Minister has said that his intention is not just to nibble at the problem. The problem must be tackled in a national way. That means very close co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education. It has nothing to do with the raising of the school age, which many hon. Members, including myself, favour. If you raise the school age to 15 there still remains the problem of those from 15 to 18, and it is a problem that has to be tackled quite apart from the mere raising of the school age, whether it comes this year or next. I do not think that any hon. Member except perhaps the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) wants to raise the school age to 18. We know nothing about the curriculum or the course or the cost, but we can do something during the period 15 to 18 if it is handled in the right spirit. The teachers are not there.
I can quote a case of what is probably the best kind of course, here in London. Just over the river a man has combined a day continuation school with an unemployment centre. He has an absolute grip on those between 14 and 18, and in practical courses everything that the Goschen Report recommends is being put into practice. I refer to the Battersea Day Continuation School. That kind of centre can be extended right through the north-east and Scotland. But it requires a genius of a teacher, and the heartiest co-operation between the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Education, and various voluntary bodies. I suggest to the hon. Member for Aberavon that if we utilise what is in Clause 1 it is possible to make it really valuable for the country.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: It seems to me that the last point made by the hon. Member who has just spoken undermines the
whole of the case that he sought to make during his speech. If it is a fact that someone who has been running a day continuation school has also been running one of these centres with special ability, it seems to me that that rather supports the case that we have been putting. [...] am sorry that once again we are going to be "boxed up" in these discussions, and that we shall be compelled to finish at half-past seven o'clock the Debate on two Clauses which might well have taken all day and even another day as well. The Committee ought to realise that this question of juvenile training centres has only been in the experimental stage up to the present. It was only in 1929 that the Minister got real power to establish centres. There were provisions in earlier Measures, but it was not until 1929 that there was any real power, and at that time Parliament thought we had found a method of ensuring that every boy and girl would go into these centres.
It was laid down that the Minister with the local education authorities was to make regulations "so far as practicable." That is equal to the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite that he is prepared to accept some alternative suggestion if the numbers are reasonable, or if the conditions are reasonable, for making enforcement orders, so to speak. What does he mean by "reasonable"? It seems to me that in this Clause the Minister is not getting any further than the 1930 Act. Under the next Clause he is taking compulsory powers, but how is he doing it? He is taking powers to compel boys to go to these centres under the 1921 Education Act. The Minister of Labour is relying upon the Education Act, 1921, to deal compulsorily with these boys under 16.
There are very wide powers under the 1930 Act, and I am sure that all who remember the Debates on that Act will agree that it was generally considered that the Minister had all the necessary power to see that in practically every part of the country, boys came into these instructional centres. What are the facts? The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) has pointed out some of the figures. The commission's report states that during the first six months of 1932, the average number of juveniles on the registers of Employment Exchanges and juvenile employment bureaux ex-
ceeded 120,000, of whom slightly more than half were insured. In no case did the number actually in instructional centres exceed 20,000 for the whole of the six months. The Committee will want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is taking effective steps to deal with that situation, and to see that the great bulk if not all of the remainder of the 120,000, who are not yet in instructional centres, are going to be brought into them in future years. As I say, this has been in an experimental stage. In 1921 it was realised for the first time that not only were we going to have upon our hands large masses of unemployed boys and girls, but that the numbers were actually going to increase in future.
I wish to pay my tribute to the work that has been and is being done in instructional centres, under great disadvantages, but that work varies. There are places where one finds the kind of genius of whom the hon. Member for Kilmarnock spoke, who can handle boys in a remarkably successful way. I know one case in which boys of 18 have actually requested that they should be allowed to remain in a centre, which is a tribute to the training in that centre, but, as I say, the work varies. Whether it is on the Board of Education side, or on the Ministry of Labour side, it will be difficult to get the right kind of men and women teachers to handle boys who have previously left school and gone out for some time into the workaday world. A boy of 18 who has been in industry is a different type from the boy who has continued in a secondary school, and we must realise that the problem raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) is not merely one of raising the school age. I am in favour of doing so, but I want the Committee to realise that the object of the Amendment is that the Board of Education should be responsible for this work rather than the Ministry of Labour and that this should be a continuation of education.
I do not think we can deal adequately with this question of keeping a grip upon these boys and girls who have left school, except through the Board of Education. In the first place, the education authorities in these various areas know the histories of the boys and girls concerned and, with all due respect, the same cannot be said of the Ministry of Labour.
In the Chester-le-Street area the Employment Exchange supplies dozens of schools, but the people in charge of the exchange cannot have the knowledge of a boy's record which is possessed by the education authorities. Then there is a traditional kind of authority in regard to education in the schools which I do not think instructional centres as at present composed can possess. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say clearly what he expects from this Clause. As I say I regret that our time is so short because we are now dealing with what is perhaps the biggest subject coming under Part I of the Bill. Can the Minister give us any reason for supposing that there is going to be a definite advance, either as regards the numbers going to these centres, or the curriculum, or the grip upon the boys and girls? I think we require a stronger reason than we have been given up to the present for placing this training under the Ministry of Labour.
This is not a criticism of the way in which the Minister has met this problem as an experimental matter, but I emphasise that it has only been experimental up to the present. I have received the impression from this Debate that the Committee consider that we are going to develop just a little bit in regard to this question, and to get into these centres a few more than have been there in the past. But this question now is permanent and is so big that it wants handling in a radical and fundamental way, different from the way in which it has been handled up to the present. I do not think that this Clause, even with the larger powers under Clause 14, will achieve what the Minister wants. I do not think we shall meet this problem properly until we do so from the point of view of raising the educational age, but, if we cannot have that, the next best thing is the continuity of the grip of the educational system upon these boys and girls.

6.40 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I deeply regret that I have not heard the whole of this Debate, because, having children between 14 and 16 years, I feel some interest in this question. Knowing that the Opposition were going to oppose this proposal, I wished that new Members of the House of Commons had been able to see for themselves what the Opposition did in regard to this question when
they were in office. If new Members had had that experience, they would get up one by one and point their fingers at the Opposition. What happened would make the gods weep. We heard the Opposition for years talking of what they were going to do when they got into office. They got into office and they had a majority in the House of Commons in favour of raising the school age. Sir Charles Trevelyan was Minister for Education and Mrs. Wintringham, then Member for Louth, and I went to him about it. There were Liberals in favour of raising the school age; some Tories were also in favour of it, and as I say we had a majority for it. Some of us fought our elections on it and nearly lost, because the proposal was not popular. This was a reform which the party now in Opposition had been preaching throughout the country, but when we raised the question and when they were in office, what was the reply? We were told that it was not popular. We said we had known that all along. Why did not the hon. Members above the Gangway raise the school-leaving age then? They always said they intended to do it, but when they got office they did not do it. I am annoyed at the National Government's attitude towards the question, because I feel that if they do not do it, it will, never be done. If the Socialists, by any chance, did get into power there would be no money for the instructional centres, let alone the raising of the school age.

Mr. LAWSON: You wrecked our Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR: I have not forgotten what happened. You yourselves brought in a controversial Clause which absolutely wrecked the Bill. If hon. Members do not know that they ought to know it. I deeply regret that the Government have not gone boldly ahead and raised the school age. I am certain they will have to do it because the question of industry taking in juveniles and leaving out parents is becoming a serious problem. I was speaking yesterday to a great educationist who said that in the mill towns in the North, the great problem was where the parents were unemployed and yet the industries were taking in juveniles. That is something which the country will not stand, and the Government will be forced to move, and I hope myself that they will move
soon. [Interruption.] There is no truth in your opposition to-day, no truth anywhere. There is no real honesty about it. The National Union of Teachers have got so much money that they pay people to agitate, and they are putting up the backs of honest, decent citizens against the teachers, because these men are paid. They have paid jobs, and if they did not agitate, they are frightened that they would lose their jobs. There are plenty of the best people who will tell you that the poor fellows have always to agitate, because if they do not, they will lose their job. It would be cheaper, I think, for the country to buy them out.
I have always believed passionately in raising the school age, and I do not think any fair-minded parents in this House, if they looked at it from the national point of view, or even from the individual point of view, would deny what I have said a hundred times in this House, that the years from 14 to 16 are the most delicate in the child's life. I agree with the hon. Member below me who said that our education system from 14 to 16 ought not to be so technical, but that we ought to give these young people a general education, so that they would be ready to go into any kind of industry that was necessary. I feel strongly that, from a national point of view, we are wasting some of the best of our young citizens, simply because nobody has had vision and courage enough to go ahead. The National Government at least are trying to do something, and they should have the commendation of the whole House, and not the condemnation of the Opposition.
I was talking to a really able Labour man only this last week-end. He is interested in education, not from a political point of view, but really from an educational point of view. I was talking about this very Bill, and while he regretted that they cannot raise the school age, he said, "Next to that, the Government are really doing a splendid thing." I might say also that he thought it was far better to keep these instructional centres under the Ministry of Labour than under the Board of Education. Not only that, but I could quote Miss Hawtrey, whom I think most hon. Members know. She was on the Hadow Committee, and she is one of our first and foremost educationists, and she says that it is far better that these centres should be under the
Ministry of Labour than under the Board of Education. Hon. Members know that if I thought the other way, I should say it, but it is not what I think, but what far better people think, people better than anybody in this Committee, people who watch the question not from a party point of view, but from an educational point of view throughout the country. Therefore, I do not think the Government need worry about this Amendment.
I congratulate the Government on these centres, which are, it is true, experimental, but it is very important that we should get the best instructors that we can. I do not know if this arises exactly on this Clause, but there will be some difficulty about the teachers. I think, however, we could easily get over that difficulty if the Ministry got a rota of teachers attached to certain areas, so that they would always be ready to go where they were needed. The difficulty will be that some of the children get into these centres only for a few months and then go out again. That will be our real problem, but it is easy to get over that difficulty, as I say, if the Minister will have a rota of teachers for certain areas, so that they can go where they are wanted. Then you would be certain to get the very best teachers; and it would have to be a permanent job. I do not say that we have tried, but we will try, and sooner or later we are going to see it come to pass, that we shall take all children in this country out of industry up to 16 years of age. I am certain that we shall come to that, and I know that if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had his way, we should do it to-day. I do not want to press him for an answer now, but I know the kind of man he is. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask him!"] I do not want to put him wrong with the Cabinet. He has got to lead the Cabinet, instead of being led by them, and I want him to keep the position he has got. [interruption.] There is no question of wanting him to be honest; he could not be anything else.
I hope very much that this House of Commons will not be put off by this Bill to slacken their efforts for the juveniles of the country. I remember very well, when there was a Motion years ago about juvenile training centres, that some of our diehards wanted to do away with
them. One of my Labour friends said, "If I were a Tory, they are the last thing that I would do away with, because there is nothing that helps Socialism, or Communism, or you might even say Fascism or any other of these 'isms,' more than idle boys and girls walking about the streets." I should look with horror on the prospect of a Socialist Government, and I think that the best way to keep people from being taken in by that spurious humbug, or perhaps I should say that propaganda, is to give them a proper education up to the age of 16, to take them out of the labour market till they are 16, to train them and equip them, and show that we, the National Government, have a realisation of our duty to them.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said he wanted every child in the country to have the same advantages. I say that that is impossible, because we cannot give them the same parents, and even if we did give them the same parents, we should not give them the same natures. We cannot guarantee that, but the National Government ought to go down to history as the Government whose first care was the young people of the country. Hon. Members who are voting for the Government are grateful to them for all that they are doing, and particularly to the Minister of Labour, who has made a brave and gallant fight for these juveniles, and clone more than any other Minister of Labour ever did before—far more than you of the Opposition ever did. We shall have a great fight with the Opposition about compulsory juvenile training and all the rest. However, we are not concerned with the Opposition, but we are very much concerned with our own National Government, and we beg them to go even further than they are going to-day, and to do something positive, definite and even more constructive than just to run these juvenile training centres.

6.54 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): As there have been several references to the Board of Education, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a word or two from the point of view of the Board, with particular reference to the Amendment
before the Committee. But before I do so, may I thank the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) for her kind allusions to myself? I feel inclined to reply to her in words which, I think, Sydney Smith used of William Pitt:
He is a remarkable man; he knows what I think better than I know myself.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), in moving the Amendment, desired that the work of the junior instruction centres should be placed, not upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, but upon my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education, and that argument was reinforced in moving and eloquent terms by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and other hon. Members. Before I state briefly the point of view of the Board of Education and show how difficult it would be for the Board if the Amendment were accepted, may I say that the hon. Member for Aberavon provided me with a distinct objection to his own. Amendment in a speech which he made in this House last Monday, when he declared:
it is absolutely impossible to plan any educational scheme inside of the junior instruction centre."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1934; col. 105, Vol. 285.]
If that is the view of the hon. Member, I am a little suspicious when, only a week later, he moves an Amendment seeking to place on the Board of Education responsibility for schemes which, in his own view, cannot possibly be of an educational character if they are inside the instruction centres. I fear the hon. Member when he brings the board a gift like this. He may be digging a pit for me. But I can tell him that in vain is the net spread in the sight of the Board. We at the Board of Education have had practically no experience of these junior instruction centres, but, on the other hand, within limits my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has had considerable experience. Authorities like the hon. Baronet and others agree on the whole that the work has been done very satisfactorily and has indeed been invaluable, and it seems to me that that is one very strong reason indeed against our transferring the work to the Board of Education, which has had little or no experience of this kind.
These junior instruction centres must depend to a large extent on the question of employment and unemployment, and it is clear in the first Sub-section of Clause 13 that the condition that will govern the establishment of these courses will be the extent of employment, and not only the actual state of employment, but something which the Board of Education have no means of knowing, and that is the prospective state of employment in a particular area. These are considerations which would be within the province of the local authority, and it would be impossible for the Board of Education to give guidance in regard to them. If the Board had responsibility for these matters, it would be necessary almost every time to refer to the Ministry of Labour, which would be extremely embarrassing and administratively very difficult for all.
Then, again, on the question of attendance at these centres; attendance, I understand, is often bound up with the question of paying unemployment benefit, and that is not within the province of the Board of Education. If points that might arise in connection with it were addressed by the local authorities to ourselves, there again they would have to be referred to the Ministry of Labour for information, confirmation, and so forth. As regards those not drawing benefit, employment is really the important factor, and there again it is a matter for the Ministry of Labour rather than for ourselves to deal with. I would remind the Committee that under the choice of employment procedure it is not the Board of Education but the Ministry of Labour that guides the local authorities. It is that kind of procedure which is obviously relevant to the unemployed, uninsured, juveniles. Certain requirements are placed upon the local authorities, and in certain cases which there is no reason to believe will ever occur, a local authority can be compelled in the last resort by mandamus to do certain things. Considerations which would lead to a procedure of that kind must themselves relate to matters dealing with employment and unemployment, and the Ministry of Labour could alone speak with direct authority and decide whether or not the state of affairs was such that the local authority must be coerced. The Board of Education could not have the
information that would enable them to take steps of that kind; they can only be taken by the Ministry of Labour, and not by ourselves.
Incidentally, I would point out to the hon. Member for Aberavon that he has left Clause 14 unamended, the Clause dealing with the attendance of the school children, which is to be within the purview of the Minister of Labour. If that Clause is left unamended, we shall have a dual control; on the other hand, the Minister of Education, responsible for providing classes, and on the other, the Minister of Labour, responsible for the attendance. Another point arises in connection with the central contribution from the Unemployment Fund, for which the Minister of Labour is responsible. The Board of Education has no control over the Unemployment Fund.
The object of these classes, although educational—and there I differ from the hon. Member for Aberavon, who thinks that they are not educational at all—is also industrial. As far as the Board of Education is concerned, I say here and now that it will act in the closest and most cordial co-operation with the Minister of Labour. We shall place at his disposal certain of our inspectors and our experience, and give him any help that we possibly can to make these centres a great success.

Sir P. HARRIS: Would the hon. Member deal with the point raised by the Noble Lady—the possibility of a rota of teachers, because of the difficulty of changing numbers?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I was just going to deal with that point, although there is no Amendment on the Paper concerning it.

Viscountess ASTOR: I brought it up only as a suggestion.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As no Amendment was down, I did not give it any detailed consideration. I am aware of the point, and also that no serious difficulty has arisen in the centres which have been established. It will, however, be very carefully considered. One of the objects of these centres is to improve the employability of those who attend them, and, so far as I can judge, a good deal of the success of the centres must depend upon the extent to which they help the
juveniles to secure employment or to return to the employment they have lost. That, again, is a matter which is the immediate concern of the Minister of Labour. Although it concerns the Board of Education as well, the primary responsibility must lie upon my right hon. Friend. I hope, from what I have said, that the Committee will realise the practical difficulties which this Amendment would involve for the Board of Education. I suggest that it will be far better to leave the matter in the extremely capable hands of the Minister, which will be reinforced, as far as possible, by the co-operation of the Board.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The hon. Gentleman is a good man battling with adversity. I think that the main difficulties which he mentions do not really exist. He has told us of the difficulty of establishing these centres under the Board of Education. He has told us that the Ministry of Labour has had some experience of them—on an extremely limited scale and not in any extensive way, but merely as a kind of stop-gap method of dealing with a problem which was not considered to he permanent, but only a passing phase. The hon. Gentleman goes on to assure us that the Minister of Labour will have the very cordial co-operation and assistance of the Board of Education. Why should the Ministry of Labour not give the Board of Education their cordial co-operation, and let the Board embark upon this new venture? After all, if the two Departments are going to swop experiences, I believe that the Board of Education is the right medium for this work.
We are dealing with a problem which is not, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) said, an unimportant one but a very important and a growing problem, and one which will dominate the situation. It has been created in the last seven or eight years by the growing perfection of scientific methods and mechanical progress. We are not stopping that progress; nobody proposes to do anything of the kind. The mechanisation of industry is a process which will continue. The constant infusion of new ideas creates this problem for us, and what we should be doing is to deal with it from a bigger point of view altogether, because it is one of
gigantic dimensions. Speaking as a craftsman, I believe sincerely that every intelligent man should learn and practise a trade. I do not believe in the idea that it takes years and years to learn a job; I believe that a man can learn the basis of a job easily, and that age and experience then perfect him in method and make him a more or less skilled craftsman.
My difficulty is: what are these boys and girls going to learn? Is it a trade? Is it an occupation? Are they going to learn to make soapboxes and three-legged stools? When they have learnt a craft, where do they go? How are they going to continue? It is easy to put boys and girls in classes, but when they leave the classes, having learnt something of the job, they return to homes in which there is not a square foot where they can continue the job, which they have probably begun to like. If you teach them a job, every trade is filled to overflowing. There is a vast percentage of unemployed men and women now in every skilled occupation in the country—cabinet-making, joinery, metal-work, building, brickwork; everything is filled to overflowing already. What are these boys and girls going to do, and how are you going to keep them at their jobs? A boy goes into a class and in three months work is offered to him and he must take it, and so the job is dropped. You have done something: you have kept him off the street, and that is perhaps the best thing you could have done, but this method that we are now discussing does not touch the fringe of a problem that grows in intensity and must increase in intensity.
I shall vote for this Amendment, because I believe that the Board of Education is the right Department to take these young people in hand. I do not believe that the Ministry of Labour can teach them jobs, but I do believe that the Board of Education can teach them the humanities. If you cannot teach them a trade, teach them to build up their characters; give them a liberal education; teach them to become better men and better women. It is all very well to say that education is all right for men who are going into certain professions. I do not believe in that theory that the finesses, the niceties and the graces of life—literature, art and music—should be kept for those who follow
the learned professions. I want to see, not every gentleman a bricklayer, but every bricklayer a gentleman in the truest sense of the term, and I want him to be able to appreciate the best that the President of the Board of Education appreciates. Why not? We can only begin by enlarging our scope, our vision; by recognising that we have to face a great, growing and mighty problem and that we must find a solution to it or our race will deteriorate. If we tackle it on the lines I have suggested—perhaps not very adequately, but to the best of my ability—we shall reach a solution of our difficulty, and ultimately find our way out of the morass.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I have listened, not quite to all but to nearly all of the Debate to-day, and it has been devoted to greater issues than those raised in the Clause. I was responsible recently for moving the rejection of a Bill to raise the school age to 15, and I am glad to say that I was successful, and that that proposal will not be realised during the present Session of the House. Nevertheless, despite the fact that this House has already, on my motion, rejected that proposal, it has been the subject of a good deal of discussion to-day. It would have been an advantage if we could have had this Debate to-morrow, because in to-morrow's newspapers we shall see the unemployment figures made up to the end of January, the figures for juveniles for the first period during which what the educationists call the "bulge" has begun to show itself. The first unduly large number of school-leavers left school at the end of the Christmas term. It is the first time that the higher birth-rate immediately following the War has reflected itself, and therefore, when your papers are published to-morrow morning, you will see a substantial increase in the number of registered juveniles. That, of course, you have every year, and we cannot judge the situation merely by what happens at the end of one term. The former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), was talking of the number of juvenile unemployed at some time in 1932. Since then that total has dropped by 40 per cent., taking the figures as they were before Christmas, and the problem is therefore not one of
the magnitude which he was describing. As a matter of fact, its general magnitude is not as great as has been indicated.

Mr. COVE: Not by the Minister of Labour himself?

Mr. WILLIAMS: No, nor by anyone else. If the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) would listen, he would hear of something to his advantage. At the end of December—or rather, just before Christmas—73,000 registered juveniles were out of work in this country, and there may also be a few between 14 and 16 who did not appear on any of the registers. That represented a decrease of nearly 25 per cent. on the two previous months. Of those unemployed juveniles not more than one-tenth had been out of work for as long as three months. I want the Committee to realise that the problem which exists is not the problem which has been stated by so many speakers in this Committee this afternoon. The problem which most of them describe does not exist at all in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) spoke. There is not going to be a great rush to open a juvenile instruction centre in his constituency because only 91 persons were registered there as unemployed juveniles on 18th December. Obviously you cannot run much of a centre with 91 juveniles, not more than a dozen of whom in all probability have been out of work for more than a fortnight.
Let us realise the truth of the situation. Even when the bulge is fully shown, the bulk of the towns in this country will not have a juvenile instruction centre, because there will be no job for it to do. There will be a few cities like Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester, where the situation is bad. But take a city like Birmingham, one of the six cities which, according to local claims, are the second largest in the Empire. There were 358 juveniles unemployed on 18th December in the whole of that city, which to-day has a population of 1,000,000 persons. The number is so small, and when you bear in mind that the bulk of them have not been out of work for more than a few days—

Mr. WALLHEAD: Do these figures apply to children between 16 and 18, or those from 14 to 18?

Mr. WILLIAMS: To both. They are in two categories. There is a table published showing boys and girls separately—the insured from 16 to 18, and the uninsured from 14 to 18. It is on page 26 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for January. The problem which has been described to us is, therefore, one which has no reality. Let us take a town like the one I formerly represented—Reading—which has only 82. Plymouth, which is naturally rather worse, has 371.

Viscountess ASTOR: This is only the hon. Member's annual little leg-pull. Let him have his fun.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We have at least had the advantage of inducing the Noble Lady to listen to the Debate. Take a town with which I am familiar—West Bromwich—which adjoins a constituency for which I stood on two occasions. The present Member spoke and deplored the situation. In West Bromwich, an important industrial centre in the Black County, there were only 19 juveniles on the exchanges in December. In the light of all these figures, what is the use of the Board of Education setting up long-period permanent classes to deal with juvenile unemployment?

Major NATHAN: The hon. Member would not suggest to the Committee that the figures he has given for the children between 14 and 16 represent the whole of the unemployed between those ages? He only refers, I think, so far as these children are concerned, to those who actually register and who by no means represent the whole of the unemployed between 14 and 16.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Those from 16 to 18 are practically all insured. The remaining group is 14 to 18, who are uninsured. What is the practice to-day when children leave school? They are all advised to register at the juvenile Employment Exchange. It is invariably the case—

Mr. COVE: Give us statistics, and not a general statement.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am already answering one question. I can give particulars of those who do register, but obviously I cannot give particulars of those who do not. I can, however, give reasonable indications to show that that number is small. What is the practice? Most parents are very busy during the two or
three months before the children leave school and the parents themselves are successful in placing the bulk of the children. In December, the number of juveniles placed by the Ministry of Labour was 28,000. On 18th December, only 73,000 were left on the registers in Great Britain. When we bear in mind that 28,000 are placed by the Exchanges in a month when the register total is 73,000, and that a large number of the juveniles place themselves, we can say with truth that the personnel of the juvenile unemployed completely changes in a month, and, in many parts of the country, in a fortnight. That is the situation which exists. The situation which I am describing and which anybody can find out for himself, is not the situation to which most hon. Members have addressed themselves in the Debate. I suggest that legislation ought to be based on facts, and not on theories which people elaborate from their heads.
The plain truth of the matter is that at this moment in this country, if we leave out of account one or two peculiarly situated areas, there is no juvenile unemployment problem at all. Now we shall have the experience which will face us during the next two years. The birthrate was very high after the War and it is just now reflecting itself. Those who left school just before Christmas are the advance army of that rather larger number of children who will be leaving during the next two or three years. It is conceivable that in a year from now, as a result of this increase, despite the improvement in trade that we all hope will come about, there may be some increase in volume of juvenile unemployment. Even if it were to be double what it is now, the system laid down in the Bill is far more calculated to handle the situation than any permanent system under the Board of Education. I rejoice very much that the Ministry of Labour is going to deal with this job, and not the Board of Education.
I am not one of those who believe that a child should be compelled to remain at school until 15. Those areas which have adopted the by-law raising the school age to 15 do not enforce it effectively, for the exemptions they grant are so extensive that in actual practice the number of children remaining at school over 14 is not materially affected.

Viscountess ASTOR: There is not one word of truth in that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Noble Lady can select her own language in her own way. Let us take Plymouth. The exemptions there are 51 per cent. Does the Noble Lady suggest there is not one word of truth in that?

Viscountess ASTOR: The Noble Lady suggests that the reason why exemptions are 51 per cent. in Plymouth is because there are people on the education committee exactly like the hon. Member. They are people with no imagination and no vision at all. They have exactly the mentality of the hon. Member, who always speaks on every occasion, and knows nothing about anything that is really important.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That does not seem very pertinent. The Noble Lady suggested there was not a word of truth in what I have said. When I ask her to admit the truth of what I said she suggests that I am imaginative, and when I show that I was telling the truth she suggests that I am not imaginative. I do not in the least care on what ground she attacks me, but I do think it is desirable she should stick to the same ground of attack for at least 30 seconds together. There are other areas where the percentages of exemptions are even higher than Plymouth. The truth of the matter is, of course, that you cannot in practice raise the school age to 15, because the great mass of the people will not let you. Until we realise that fact, we might as well give up wasting our time discussing a totally impracticable policy. In the meantime, the Ministry of Labour authorises local authorities in those areas where a problem may arise to deal with it. The nature of the problem and the degree of casualness that is inevitably involved in this part-time system of training is such that it would be absurd to run it on the lines of the ordinary elementary or secondary school. I congratulate the Minister of Labour on the method he is planning. I am certain he is capable of dealing with any problem that may arise, and in his efforts he has the support of the vast majority of the Committee.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has told the Committee that in certain cities like Glasgow and Liverpool there is certainly a juvenile unemployment problem, but that in Birmingham there is absolutely none. If he were to get "John Bull" for last week he would see a picture of hundreds of as fine looking youths as it has ever been my lot to see making application for a job in Birmingham. Hundreds applied for one job there, and their ages ranged from 16 to 18. It is true, as the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) said, that the hon. Member for South Croydon is one of the most reactionary Members of the House. He opposes any advanced idea that is put forward, and takes a delight in doing so. The Minister of Labour has lost a glorious chance in this Bill, because everybody knows how serious is the problem of what we are to do with the youth of this country. The Minister has tried to face it, and has thought seriously about it. I know that, because I have talked it over with him. It is no use, therefore, for the hon. Member for South Croydon to say there is no problem.
The Minister realises that there is a very serious problem. We are in a different age now. The Government are preparing

these youths to work in the way that I had to in the days of my youth. That day is past, however. Britain is no longer the workshop of the world, and there is not the work for these youths to do. The machine has displaced them, and the sub-division of labour and the reorganisation of the workshops has made it impossible for all the youths to be employed as they were formerly. The Ministry of Labour are going to educate these young men to work when they ought to be getting prepared for going to the university. I remember the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), when he was Minister of Education, stating how essential it was for the youths to get part-time education in order that they may be able to work. The noble Lord's class never prepare their boys to go as colliers or engineers in order to make them better men. They know better than that; they send their youths to the universities.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'in,' inline 12, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 329; Noes, 58.

Division No. 86.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cook, Thomas A.


Albery, Irving James
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cooke, Douglas


Alexander, Sir William
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cooper, A. Duff


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Copeland, Ida


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Burghley, Lord
Cranborne, Viscount


Apsley, Lord
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Craven-Ellis, William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burnett, John George
Crooke, J. Smedley


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Butler, Richard Austen
Cross, R. H.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Crossley, A. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dalkeith, Earl of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Carver, Major William H.
Davison, Sir William Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cassels, James Dale
Dawson, Sir Philip


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Castlereagh, Viscount
Denville, Alfred


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Dickle, John P.


Bernays, Robert
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Donner, P. W.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W)
Doran, Edward


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Drewe, Cedric


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Borodale, Viscount
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Duggan, Hubert John


Bossom, A. C.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Boulton, W. W.
Clarke, Frank
Dunglass, Lord


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Clarry, Reginald George
Eales, John Frederick


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Eastwood, John Francis


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Eden, Robert Anthony


Bracken, Brendan
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Conant, R. J. E.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Elmley, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Mabane, William
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McCorquodale, M. S.
Selley, Harry R.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fox, Sir Gifford
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McKie, John Hamilton
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Ganzonl, Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, Adam
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smithers, Waldron


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerset, Thomas


Goff, Sir Park
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Somervell, Sir Donald


Gower, Sir Robert
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Meller, Sir Richard James
Soper, Richard


Graves, Marjorie
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Spencer, Captain Richard A


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Spens, William Patrick


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stevenson, James


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Stones, James


Hanbury, Cecil
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Storey, Samuel


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Munro, Patrick
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Harbord, Arthur
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Strauss, Edward A.


Hartland, George A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
North, Edward T.
Summersby, Charles H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nunn, William
Sutcliffe, Harold


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Connor, Terence James
Templeton, William P.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Hepworth, Joseph
Patrick, Colin M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peake, Captain Osbert
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G
Pearson, William G.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Peat, Charles U.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hornby, Frank
Penny, Sir George
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Horobin, Ian M.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Train, John


Horsbrugh, Florence
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Tree, Ronald


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Petherick, M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hurd, Sir Percy
Pike, Cecil F.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Jamieson, Douglas
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Radford, E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Weymouth, Viscount


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Knight, Holford
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wise, Alfred R.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Withers, Sir John James


Lees-Jones, John
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Levy, Thomas
Rickards, George William
Womersley, Walter James


Lewis, Oswald
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Ross, Ronald D.



Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Liewellin, Major John J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Captain Austin Hudson and Lord


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Runge, Norah Cecil
Erisken.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Batey, Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Attlee, Clement Richard
Briant, Frank
Cove, William G.


Banfield, John William
Buchanan, George
Cripps, Sir Stafford




Curry, A. C.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Dagger, George
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickering, Ernest H.


Edwards, Charles
Hicks, Ernest George
Rea, Walter Russell


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Kirkwood, David
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Leonard, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
White, Henry Graham


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Groves, Thomas E.
Nathan, Major H. L.



Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendment proposed: "In page 12, line 21, to leave out 'proceeding' and insert '.travelling'."—[Mr. Hudson.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it strictly in order for an Amendment to be moved when the Member moving

it is not the Member whose name stands on the Order Paper.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): That is not only in order, but it is quite customary for a Government Amendment which has only to be moved formally to be moved by any Member of the Government.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 346: Noes, 39.

Division No. 87.]
AYES.
[7.44 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Donner, P. W.


Alexander, Sir William
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Doran, Edward


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Drewe, Cedric


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Carver, Major William H.
Duggan, Hubert John


Apsley, Lord
Cassels, James Dale
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dunglass, Lord


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Eales, John Frederick


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Eastwood, John Francis


Atholl, Duchess of
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Eden, Robert Anthony


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Elmley, Viscount


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Clarke, Frank
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bernays, Robert
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Conant, R. J. E.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cook, Thomas A.
Fermoy, Lord


Borodale, Viscount
Cooke, Douglas
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Bossom, A. C.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Boulton, W. W.
Copeland, Ida
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cranborne, Viscount
Fox, Sir Gifford


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Craven-Ellis, William
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Bracken, Brendan
Crooke, J. Smedley
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cross, R. H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Briant, Frank
Crossley, A. C.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Curry, A. C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.


Burghley, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Goff, Sir Park


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Davison, Sir William Henry
Gower, Sir Robert


Burnett, John George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Denville, Alfred
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Butler, Richard Austen
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Graves, Marjorie


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Dickle, John P.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Selley, Harry R.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Meller, Sir Richard James
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hanbury, Cecil
Mitcheson, G. G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Harbord, Arthur
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harris, Sir Percy
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Hartland, George A.
Morgan, Robert H.
Somerset, Thomas


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Soper, Richard


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Munro, Patrick
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hepworth, Joseph
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Spens, William Patrick


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
North, Edward T.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Holdsworth, Herbert
Nunn, William
Stevenson, James


Hornby, Frank
O'Connor, Terence James
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Horobin, Ian M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stones, James


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Patrick, Colin M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pearson, William G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hurd, Sir Percy
Peat, Charles U.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Penny, Sir George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Summersby, Charles H.


Jamieson, Douglas
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Janner, Barnett
Petherick, M.
Templeton, William P.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Pike, Cecil F.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Ker, J. Campbell
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Knight, Holford
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Train, John


Knox, Sir Alfred
Radford, E. A.
Tree, Ronald


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Law, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Lees-Jones, John
Rathbone, Eleanor
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Levy, Thomas
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lewis, Oswald
Rea, Walter Russell
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Warrender. Sir Victor A. G.


Liewellin, Major John J.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Remer, John R.
Weymouth, Viscount


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
White, Henry Graham


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rickards, George William
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mabane, William
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Ross, Ronald D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wise, Alfred R.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Withers, Sir John James


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


McKie, John Hamilton
Russeil, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Womersley, Walter James


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Salmon, Sir Isidore



Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Maitland, Adam
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Captain Austin Hudson and Lord



Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Eriskin.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Groves, Thomas E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dagger, George
Grundy, Thomas W.


Banfield, John William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, Charles
Hicks, Ernest George


Buchanan, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Kirkwood, David


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Cove, William G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Leonard, William




Lunn, William
Nathan, Major H. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Owen, Major Goronwy
Wallhead, Richard C.


McEntee, Valentine L.
Paling, Wilfred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Mainwaring, William Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Maxton, James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Milner, Major James
Thorne, William James
Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.


Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Power to require attendance of persons under eighteen at authorised courses.)

Amendment made: In page 13, line 15, at the end, insert:
(3) Education authorities shall have power to assist the Minister with respect to the attendance at authorised courses of persons who may be, or have been, required by the Minister under this section to attend thereat:

"Provided that legal proceedings for enforcing a requirement of the Minister that any person should attend at an authorised course shall not be taken by an education authority except under the last foregoing sub-section on behalf of the Minister."—[Sir H. Betterton.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 343; Noes, 40.

Division No. 88.]
AYES.
[7.57 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Albery, Irving James
Clarke, Frank
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Alexander, Sir William
Clarry, Reginald George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Goff, Sir Park


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Conant, R. J. E.
Gower, Sir Robert


Apsley, Lord
Cook, Thomas A.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cooke, Douglas
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cooper, A. Duff
Graves, Marjorie


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Copeland, Ida
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Grimston, R. V.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Craven-Ellis, William
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cross, R. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crossley, A. C.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Curry, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir R.W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Bernays, Robert
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hanbury, Cecil


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harbord, Arthur


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Denville, Alfred
Harris, Sir Percy


Borodale, Viscount
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Bossom, A. C.
Dickle, John P.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Roulton, W. W.
Donner, P. W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Doran, Edward
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Bower, Lieut, Com. Robert Tatton
Drewe, Cedric
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthhert M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bracken, Brendan
Duggan, Hubert John
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dunglass, Lord
Hepworth, Joseph


Briant, Frank
Eales, John Frederick
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Broadbent, Colonel John
Eastwood, John Francis
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Eden, Robert Anthony
Holdsworth, Herbert


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hornby, Frank


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Horobin, Ian M.


Burghley, Lord
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Horsbrugh, Florence


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Elmley, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Burnett, John George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Butler, Richard Austen
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hurd, Sir Percy


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jamieson, Douglas


Carver, Major William H.
Fermoy, Lord
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Cassels, James Dale
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Castlereagh, Viscount
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col, Charles (Montrose)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Law, Sir Alfred


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Peat, Charles U.
Soper, Richard


Lees-Jones, John
Percy, Lord Eustace
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Levy, Thomas
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lewis, Oswald
Petherick, M.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Pete, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Blist'n)
Spens, William Patrick


Liewellin, Major John J.
Pickering, Ernest H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Pike, Cecil F.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Stevenson, James


Locker-Lampoon, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stones, James


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Radford, E. A.
Strauss, Edward A.


Mabane, William
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Summersby, Charles H.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sutcliffe, Harold


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rea, Walter Russell
Templeton, William P.


McKie, John Hamilton
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Maitland, Adam
Remer, John R.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rickards, George William
Train, John


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Tree, Ronald


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ross, Ronald D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Meller, Sir Richard James
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)


Mitcheson, G. G.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Morgan, Robert H.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Weymouth, Viscount


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
White, Henry Graham


Moss, Captain H. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Munro, Patrick
Selley, Harry R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Wise, Alfred R.


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Withers, Sir John James


North, Edward T.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Nunn, William
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Womersley, Walter James


O'Connor, Terence James
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In.F.)



Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Somerset, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Patrick, Colin M.
Somervell, Sir Donald
Sir George Penny and Lord


Peake, Captain Osbert
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Erskine.


Pearson, William G.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leonard, William
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

CLAUSE 15.—(Power to make grants out of Unemployment Fund towards expenses of attendance at authorised courses.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member for Gorbals
(Mr. Buchanan) does not desire to move his Amendment—in page 13, line 29, to leave out Sub-section (2).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.1 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I do not know whether it would be convenient to the Parliamentary Secretary to oblige the Committee by taking the, perhaps, unusual course in these Debates of explaining to us this rather intricate financial Clause. I myself, with my hon. Friends, have endeavoured to understand it, but I have found considerable difficulty, and it would be very convenient if, with your consent, captain Bourne, the Parliamentary Secretary would enlighten us on the provisions embodied in the Clause. Then we could probably debate it with more knowledge and effectiveness than we otherwise could. If we cannot be so enlightened, I shall have the painful duty of immediately opposing the Clause, but I would rather have some enlightenment from the Parliamentary Secretary, if he would be good enough to oblige us.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I will gladly endeavour to comply with the task that has been proposed for me by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). The subject is, as he says, rather complicated, and I must pray the indulgence of the Committee if I trespass upon their time unduly long in explaining it. Sub-section (1) provides that the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, make contributions towards the cost of junior instruction centres and training centres out of the Unemployment Fund. I do not know whether the Committee desire me to justify that, but I think it can be justified very briefly on the ground that these junior instruction centres and the training courses contribute to increase the employability or to maintain the employability of persons who would otherwise become a drain on the fund. It is desirable on all grounds of public policy that a man or a juvenile who requires the benefits of these courses should be put in the position of getting them rather than that he should remain permanently or for very long periods out of work, or out of work for longer periods than he would be if he attended a course. That is the justification for asking the Unemployment Fund to contribute towards the cost.
I should perhaps deal with the two classes of courses separately—the junior instruction centres and the training
courses—in order to make the matter easier to understand. Under the law as it stands at present, in the case of training centres for men over 18 the whole of the expenditure is defrayed initially from the Exchequer, and, after that initial expenditure has been defrayed from the Exchequer, the Unemployment Fund contributes 50 per cent. of so much of the cost as is involved in the training of those persons under the age of 21 who are in receipt of benefit or transitional payments. In the case of juvenile instruction centres for persons under 18, the education authorities bear the whole cost in the first instance, and the Treasury make a grant to them of approximately 75 per cent. of the cost. Of that 75 per cent. paid by the Treasury, one-half comes from the Unemployment Fund, in respect of those persons over 16 who are insured or likely to be insured.
It will be observed that that is a very complicated arrangement. It is not so complicated in practice because, owing to the fact that the Act of 1930 only insists on the attendance at juvenile instruction centres of persons in receipt of benefit, the boys or girls who attend these centres are in fact, as to the great majority, persons who come within the definition of insured persons or persons who will normally be expected to take up insurable employment. But when the new Bill comes into operation that will no longer be the case. Then the juvenile instruction centres, especially, will be attended by persons who have had no work at all, and in respect of whom it is not at all necessarily certain that they will enter insurable employment.
The result, therefore, would be that, if the existing law remained as it is, at every single centre it would be necessary to keep complicated accounts, to show whether the child had been insured or was likely to enter into insurable employment, in which case 50 per cent. of the cost would come out of the Unemployment Fund, while with other children who had never been insured, and in respect of whom it would not be possible to say that they were going into insurable employment, the fund would not be called upon to bear any of the cost at all. It is clear that the amount of work involved would be tremendous, and we have
thought it simpler to say that the Unemployment Fund shall bear 50 per cent. of whatever grant is made to the local authorities. In the case of training centres for persons over 18, they will include a large majority of persons who are in receipt of unemployment assistance, we think it fair that the fund should be asked to bear 75 per cent. of the cost in the case of those persons who attend the training courses who are actually in receipt of benefit as distinct from unemployment assistance. I stress that point.
Therefore, the net result will be that in future while the local education authorities will bear the initial cost of the junior instruction centres, towards this cost a grant will be made from the Treasury which will normally amount to 75 per cent. The Treasury will be reimbursed one-half of that 75 per cent. by the Unemployment Fund. In respect of training centres for adults the situation will be that the Treasury will bear the whole cost of the centres initially, and the Unemployment Fund will refund to the Treasury 75 per cent. of the cost in respect of those individuals attending the training centres who are entitled to benefit. The matter is rather complicated. I hope I have made clear to the Committee the change that will be involved, and I hope they will find it so reasonable that they will now give us the Clause and allow us to proceed.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the explanation he has given. I endeavoured to follow him, and it would not have been his fault if I had not understood him. There might be two other causes, one my own density and the other the complicated nature of the scheme. It reminded me of the de-rating days, when we had elaborate mathematical explanations, and the more mathematical explanations we had the duller Members became and the more impossible it was to understand the financial issues at stake. But I would not say that about to-night. I believe we are generally seized of the main financial propositions as expounded by the hon. Gentleman. Apart from the finances of tine scheme, I think the Committee ought to concern itself also with the principles that are involved here. There are to us on this side one or two exceptionally im-
portant principles involved. A child leaves school, and those who are fortunate enough to secure employment will now become compulsorily insured. The gap has been bridged by the Government in such a way that the children who go into employment will have to pay 2d. per week and, as far as most of them are concerned, will get no direct insurance benefit. The Government say, "We know you are unemployed, but we will not give you benefit; we will provide you with junior instruction centres," a sort of policy of pumping knowledge into their heads without feeding their stomachs, ignoring altogether their physical needs and trying to deal with them purely in an educational manner. That, of course, is absolutely impossible and will be found in practice not to work out so well as is suggested.
They are going to pay 2d. per week. The employer will pay 2d. also and the State will pay 2d. That is calculated to amount to a figure of £760,000. The expenditure from the fund will he devoted in part to the maintenance of the junior instruction centres, and it is estimated that the Unemployment Fund will pay £425,000 in the first year of full operation, when the 100,000 juveniles will be in the juvenile instruction centres. We have protested more than once against the principle of dipping into the Insurance Fund in order to finance these junior instruction centres. It is not insurance. It is getting money under false pretences. The common folk, when they talk about insurance, say, "I am going to pay a premium for a cash benefit in the future." In this case they are thinking, "I will pay a premium of 2d. a week when I am in work because I hope and believe that, when I am unemployed, I shall get some monetary benefit." But it is not so. There is to be no monetary benefit between 14 and 16 accruing as a right of insurance to the child itself.
It is true that there is a dependant's benefit, but that is in another category. We think that it is a very vicious and bad principle, to take premiums—although it is only 2d. a week it is a lot to these children—with no insurance benefit directly accruing to that payment. We protested in educational Debates about fee-paying secondary school places. I remember very well the stern and prolonged struggle that we had about
Circular 1421 when the Government said the fees of secondary schools must be increased. We on this side—I am sure the solitary representative of the National Labour party will still agree with us—said there should be free secondary education. If we demand free secondary education, what defence can there be for fee-paying junior instruction centres?
This payment can be said from one point of view to be payment made for providing education for a child when he is out of employment. We think that is wrong. We think that that ought to be a State responsibility and that the Exchequer ought to come in and bear the whole cost. There is no justification in insurance from the point of view of sound social policy in putting a financial burden of this sort on to the Insurance Fund, and I should imagine the Ministry would be able to find some way out of it. The income of £760,000 is to be divided between the State, the employer, and the worker. The child will pay £253,000 in the first year from 14 to 15, and a further £253,000 in the second year—we will say a total of roughly £500,000. As far as insurance benefits are concerned, the sum that the children will receive is £230,000 for increased insurance benefit, while paying in £500,000. If we take the scheme purely as an insurance scheme, as we ought to do, it is definitely shown that instead of the Government shouldering any of the liabilities of unemployment, they are making a profit out of the unemployed child. The unemployed child is paying the sum of £500,000 for a period of two years, and the unemployed child, leaving out of account the provisions we are now discussing in Clause 15, as an insurance benefit for the £500,000 paid in, will receive only the sum of £230,000. The other expenditure is made up by the provisions embodied in this Clause. They have weighted the expenditure with that of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Again I repeat—and I am going to repeat it until the Parliamentary Secretary is tired of hearing me saying it, and until the country realises what is being done—that it is iniquitous that the cost of the junior instruction centres should be put upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and it is even more iniquitous that the
Government should make profits out of the contributions which are to be paid.
I will look at the finances a little further. An hon. Member this afternoon tried to make out a case to the effect that local authorities would not be burdened at all, and that there was very little in it, but the local authorities, as far as the finances of this scheme are concerned, will have to bear, I believe, a total burden of no less than £280,000, and they will be the authorities where there is chronic unemployment. There is the cotton industry in the Lancashire area. Anybody who has given any study to that industry will know that prospects there are not that the children will be absorbed into industry, but that there will be an increasing amount of unemployment. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) this afternoon mentioned Reading and Birmingham and gave figures from those places with regard to juvenile unemployment. The Birmingham area is one of the bright spots of Britain. It is by no means typical of what is happening in other large industrial areas. Birmingham is relatively fortunate. Take an area like Lancashire. Everybody who has given consideration to the problem knows that, without taking into account the increased number of children who will pour out of the schools in the next few years into industry, and even supposing that the level of the school population remains the same and that there is no increase at all in the number of children going into industry, it has been clearly demonstrated that in Lancashire there will be a growing mass of children who will be out of work. The very operation of the machine will do that.
One of the most significant and tragic things happening at the moment is that blind alley occupations, usually associated in our minds with the distributive trades, the errand boy and the van boy, has now reached the region of our staple industries. At one time when a boy obtained a job in the coal-mining industry—it was so when I worked underground as a lad—there was a general impression of security and that when he grew up he would still be able to find a job in the industry. That used to be so in Lancashire. When a lad was about to go into the cotton industry, he not merely looked forward to a job as a lad, but
to a job as an adult. There is a large and ever increasing number of blind alley occupations in the cotton, coal, shipbuilding, and great staple industries of this country. Look at the burden that this will throw upon Lancashire, and upon the mining areas of South Wales, the depressed areas, where a penny rate makes a tremendous difference.
I gather from one source and another that the Parliamentary Secretary is particularly interested in the junior instruction centres and that he desires to see a great development of them. I suppose, taking into account his great personal interest, that one may assume that the provision for 100,000 juvenile instruction places will really be made, and not regard it as eye-wash. I sometimes wonder whether we shall really get the 100,000. But we will assume from the tremendous interest of the Parliamentary Secretary that we shall get not only the 100,000, but that there will be an expansion of the junior instruction system to meet the growing requirements of the increasing mass of unemployed young workers in this country owing to unemployment growing in Lancashire, to the operation of the machine cutting out labour and so on, to rationalisation in one form or another, and to the fact that you have large numbers tumbling out of the schools. The hon. Member for South Croydon this afternoon only mentioned those that were coming out this year. He did not carry us very far. If he will look at the figures, he will find that this year there will be 55,000 more between the ages of 14 and 18, but, when he gets on to 1937, he will find that there will be over 400,000 more children between the ages of 14 and 18 entering the industrial field than there are at present.
Therefore, the Minister, in order to meet the requirements of these youths, will have to find junior instruction places not only for 440,000 owing to the increase of population, but for an additional number owing to the effect of rationalisation in industry. I think that it is reasonable to assume that we shall have at least 500,000 unemployed juveniles in about three or four years' time for whom we shall have to make provision in the junior instruction centres, and that the incidence of this gigantic increase in juvenile unemployment will fall mainly, if not almost completely, on the depressed areas and
industries, where there are huge aggregations of population and thousands of children, where a penny rate is generally low and brings in less than it does in other areas, in brief, where there are difficulties owing to large population and low rateable value. To those areas the Minister says: "You will have to bear the burden of training the unemployed youth in the junior instruction centres." We say that not only is it iniquitous that you are to take money from the children to finance their own education when they are unemployed, taking their twopences in order to give them clubs and so on, but that you are imposing on distressed areas this additional burden, which is an iniquitous proposal. Neither the children nor the local authority ought to bear this burden.
I could imagine there being a strong argument for the local authority contributing towards the cost of children in an ordinary educational system, but this is not the same sort of national service. It is the imposition by the Minister of Labour on the Insurance Fund of 50 per cent. of 75 per cent. That amount is to be borne by the Insurance Fund and 50 per cent. of 75 per cent. of the cost is to be borne by the Exchequer. The rest of this complex fraction will have to be borne by the local authority, which I understand will be 25 per cent. Some £425,000 will be found by the Exchequer, £425,000 by the Insurance Fund and £280,000 by the local authorities. That statement is in the Financial Memorandum by the Actuary. But that is not the end of the story. If there is to be a development commensurate with the development of the magnitude of the unemployment problem so far as youth is concerned, the financial burden will grow to a very large size. The bigger the unemployment of our youth the bigger the financial burden on the Insurance Fund and the local authorities.
We object to this financial arrangement. I cannot make out what justification there can be for such a proposal. The Parliamentary Secretary gave one or two reasons. He made a very clear statement as to the financial arrangements, but he has not given us any argument to convince us of the rightness and correctness of this form of finance. We shall oppose this Clause because we say that if the Government are going to face this
unemployment problem of youth they ought to face it as a national responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the local authority that there are unemployed children. The education authority of Lancashire is not responsible for the fact that there is unemployment in Lancashire, and the local authorities in South Wales are not responsible for the unemployment that exists there. My local education authority has no responsibility for the unemployment in my area. It is a national responsibility. In some of these areas the responsibility can be traced to the policy of the Government.
I do not wish to be controversial or provocative, but I do say that unemployment is not the responsibility of the local education authority. It is not the responsibility of the county councils, which are Conservative almost to the last degree. We exonerate the Tory county councils from that responsibility. The responsibility is national, due to great worldwide movements over which the education authorities have no control. Why should they be made responsible for the unemployed youth in their areas, why should the mining areas in South Wales, which are suffering so much from tragic unemployment, make a contribution towards junior instruction centres? The Government are placing this financial burden unjustly upon the shoulders of the local authorities. If they want to meet the situation they ought to shoulder it as a national concern and ought not to take the money either from the Insurance Fund or the local authorities.
This is a very expensive way of using money. It is expected that the cost will be about £12 or £13 per head for each pupil attending the junior instruction centres. Articles have appeared in the educational papers analysing this £13 per head and pointing out that it is about the same as is spent on the education of a child in the ordinary elementary school. The money from local authorities, from the Insurance Fund and from the Exchequer, is calculated to work out at £13 per head for these instructional centres, and I must again emphasise the fact that for the same amount you could keep these children in school. If you estimate that 500,000 children will be unemployed in the next few years, the amount which the Government will spend on providing every child with instruction
in these centres is equal to—probably greater than—the amount necessary to raise the school age and give a substantial number of children maintenance allowance.
It is said that this money is being spent to save the morale of the children. It is an amazing business that the Government should say to these children, "You shall go out into the morass of unemployment, face the dangers of demoralisation, and then we will charge you 2d. per week in order to save you from the demoralisation into which we have thrown you by our policy." It is not the business of the Ministry of Labour to bring forward schemes of this kind. It has nothing to do with the Ministry of Labour. Why should the Ministry of Labour be concerned with education in any of its phases, or dip into the Insurance Fund for the 2d. per week of the children in these juvenile centres? It is the business of the Ministry of Labour to find jobs for them. They should concentrate on finding work, not put forward a mean, paltry, and miserable scheme like this, which is unjust in its financial incidence and ineffective as far as any constructive proposal is concerned. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said that we were talking about a problem which did not exist, and that it was time to get down to realities.
The reality about the juvenile instruction centre is that it cannot and will not meet the problem confronting these children. You must not look at the best centres where this money will be spent, you must look at some of the rotten, miserable buildings which are being used. That is the reality. Where are the playing fields? My own lad goes to a secondary school where there are 47 or 48 acres of playing fields, and all the necessary facilities for sport, and for physical and intellectual improvement. Where are you going to get it here? Shoddy finance—shoddy education. In my own Division the building is a disused condemned church school, and anybody who knows anything about schools that are condemned knows how badly it must get before it is condemned. The Ministry of Labour comes proudly along and puts these children into a condemned church school, which the Board of Education has thrown over, a dirty, insanitary, filthy building. This is good
enough for your juvenile instruction centre. That is the reality behind this finance. The financial arrangements are unjust in their incidence. If the Minister of Labour is going to get any real constructive and fruitful results, on educational or social lines, out of this expenditure, he must see that the centres are centres of light and joy, that the physical amenities are there; that the opportunities for intellectual, social and physical improvement are there. The scheme in my view is unjust on its financial side and will not bear fruit on the educational side. Therefore, we shall with every justification walk into the Lobby against this Clause.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary was clear, but it made it certain that I should go into the Lobby against the Clause. It means that a certain amount of money is to be deducted from the sum which ought to go to the unemployed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has only budgeted for a certain amount of money for the unemployed, and the Minister of Labour has to work on it. The Clause means that to that extent they are going to rob the unemployed. If it was going to be beneficial in any way, it would not be so bad. This, however, is the method by which the Government have approached the gigantic problem, the serious problem, of finding an outlet for the greatest asset this country has—its youth. It is deplorable that we have to rationalise this great asset, to curtail it, and that we are not to make it as valuable and efficient as possible. Instead of the youth of Britain being made as fit citizens as possible, instead of our giving them the best to fit them to take their place in civilisation, this powerful Government, this Government which could do whatever is asked of it, goes on in this haphazard fashion and puts these youths into training centres—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the Committee has already decided about the training centres. The question before us now is how much the Government should pay towards their maintenance.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Surely I have a right to speak on the training centres and show where the money is going?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss the question whether or not there should be training centres, as that has been decided. He is entitled to discuss how much money should go to them.

Mr. McENTEE: Are we not entitled also to discuss the nature of the training centres and what we are to get for the money?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must be very careful in discussing that question, but he is perfectly entitled to discuss what money should be spent on them in order to make the best of them.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not want to fall foul of the Chair in any way, but surely you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, listened to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) describing the centres, what the buildings were like, what took place in those buildings, and what kind of education was given. The hon. Member told us that the centres could not find employment for the children. Surely, as you allowed him to go on that line, I am perfectly entitled to take the same line, only in another manner?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) went very close to that line of order, but he got back to the question whether the money to be spent would be sufficient.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You did not let me get started before you stopped me. As to that, I leave the Committee to be my judge. If you do not allow me to go on the line that I was pursuing, which I prefer to do, then I cannot proceed along the line that I had prepared, which is that the training centres are not suitable to meet the needs. I have just come from a discussion with three of the biggest employers in the shipbuilding industry. They tell me that we will have to look for another outlet for our young men, and that we cannot, as formerly, in the great shipbuilding centres send them to be apprenticed as engineers, etc. That is the case in shipbuilding and engineering, and it is the same in every one of our key industries. The development that has taken place in machinery has displaced labour, as has the reorganisation and re-equipment of works. Work that was formerly available for men is now being done by machinery.
My contention is that, instead of sending youths to these training centres which are not equipped as they should be, these youths ought to be placed under the guidance of the best type of teacher that we can get. The rich folk in this country will not send their children to training centres; they send them to the universities. I hope that the time is coming when the children of the working class who wish to be prepared for going to the universities will be so prepared. We have to train the youth of the working classes to know how to enjoy leisure, just as the youth of the well-off classes enjoy it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Ion. Member will relate his arguments to the contention that the financial provision under this Clause is insufficient for the purpose, he will be in order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I was trying to show that it is insufficient, but you were not listening to me. I said distinctly that the Government were dealing with this question in a haphazard, undirected way, that the problem was a big problem that had to be faced boldly, and not in this patchy drifting way. The youth of to-day and the youth of to-morrow will have to be handled differently from the youth of my day. They are going to demand better things, and we are going to demand more for them. Will the Members of this House send their children to training centres of this description? They certainly will not. Yet Members of this House expect an A1 population. They can have an A1 population. What do we find happening in the Army? The representative of the War Office told us only a fortnight ago that 75 per cent., or some staggering percentage of the recruits for the Army, were rejected.
Surely the Government are trying to get down to this question and deal with it. Indeed the very fact that this Bill is before us is evidence, not only of economic pressure outside but of a desire on the part of the Ministry to contribute something beneficial to their country in their day and generation. But I submit that in regard to this matter they have missed their opportunity entirely. The amount of money indicated in Clause 15 is quite insufficient to meet the situation. What are the facts? From the mothers of the boys of this country at the present time there goes up the cry which
well-nigh reaches to heaven, "What are we to do with our boys?" There is no place in the sun for these boys and that applies not only to the sons of artisans and labourers but to the sons of men in good positions. I could give innumerable instances of mothers whose husbands are in good positions pleading with me as to openings for their boys.
Principal Sir James Irvine of St. Andrew's University last year said that parents and guardians were going to the school-masters and school-mistresses of Scotland asking what profession they would recommend boys and girls to adopt and the school-masters and school-mistresses could only say, "We do not know, because every profession is packed out in this country." Sir James Irvine further said that this was causing discontent among a class of citizens in Scotland who formerly were very contented and that unless the matter were handled immediately and effectively an ugly situation such as we have not seen in Scotland in our lifetime, was likely to develop. That is the position which I would ask the Minister to face. Let the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary go to the Government with those representations which we are making to them. That is their duty. That is why they sit here and listen to what we have to say.
I know that many Members pour contempt on what we say but we have had contempt poured upon us by such people all our lives and it makes no difference to us. We are quite satisfied within ourselves that we are doing what is right and we can take our own part with anybody, on anything, in the House of Commons if necessary. It is only with mobs that hon. Members opposite can crush us. Singly they could not do it. We want the Parliamentary Secretary to let the Government know what we on these benches think about the part they are playing in regard to this question. We are anything but satisfied with these proposals. It should not need all the great brains which the Cabinet is supposed to contain, to produce a Bill of this kind. This Bill and particularly Clause 15 will not touch even the fringe of the awful problem with which we are faced and for those reasons I propose to vote against the Clause.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: As I read the Clause, the Minister will have power, with the sanction of the Treasury, to open two classes of buildings for two distinct purposes. Buildings of one class are to be equipped for the training of young persons between the school-leaving age and 18 years, and buildings of the other class are to be for the training of those unemployed persons over 18 years who may be sent there or who may volunteer to go there. If this system is to be effective it will be necessary to have reasonably good buildings, reasonably well-equipped and staffed with efficient teachers. These centres are to be entirely under the control of the Minister and are to be paid for partly from the Unemployment Fund and partly by the local authorities. All the regulations governing them are to be drawn up by the Minister and all the instruction given in them is to be under his control. Apparently the local authorities are only to have the privilege of paying. They are not to have any control in regard to the construction or equipment of buildings, the appointment of teachers or the nature of the instruction or training to be given. I think most hon. Members if asked for an individual opinion on the imposition of such conditions on local authorities in ordinary circumstances, would agree that it was grossly unfair, and I am sure the considered opinion of all the local authorities who will be called upon to pay under this Clause, will be to that effect.

Mr. JANNER: Will the hon. Member indicate where, in this Clause, there is a reference to payment by the local authorities?

Mr. McENTEE: I do not see in the Clause itself any definite statement that the local authorities are to pay, but I think it is the intention of the Government that they shall pay part of the cost of the instruction. If they do not pay, then obviously as the Clause stands, this instruction and training would only be paid for in part and could not go on for very long. I understand that the balance, after the Government contribution has been made, is to be paid by the local authorities. That is the generally accepted view among local authorities, in the Press, and among the public. My objection to the Clause is that if that statement be true, the local authorities are quite
justified in stating, as some of them have stated, that the whole incidence of the Clause is unfair to them. It used to be said, in the old days, particularly by the party below the Gangway here, that taxation without representation is unfair, and all of us remember the fights that some of them put up, when the party was stronger and more effective than it is now, for the right of those who were taxed to have some say in the expenditure of the money collected from them.
However, I am concerned with the children of the class to which I myself belong, the working class. Those children will come out of school in the normal way, and they may or may not obtain employment. If they obtain temporary employment, they may, before they reach the age of 18, be unemployed, and in those circumstances presumably all of them will be compelled to attend instruction centres. The term "instruction centre" leads one to believe that they will get a form of instruction that will be of some value to them, and it is generally admitted in the school life of our country if instruction is to be given, that a certain standard is laid down of the type of building in which the instruction should be given, the nature of the instruction itself, the equipment of the building in which it is given, and certain minimum standards are laid down for the teachers who are to give that instruction. I think the Committee has a right to ask the Minister for some information as to just what that term "instruction" means, and on his reply to this question we ought to be able to give our considered judgment as to whether the estimated amount that the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be able to expend in the way in which the Clause says the money shall be expended is sufficient to give a reasonably good instruction.
I want to say emphatically that it appears to me that the whole thing, from beginning to end, is a shoddy attempt to instruct these young people. In the first place, the buildings are not available in most counties and county boroughs throughout the country. Therefore, the Minister presumably is going to put up new buildings. If he is not, let me say that if he thinks what some of his predecessors did in regard to some of the temporary instruction that was given in the past to young persons, it
would be far better if it were left undone. I have been in some of those school buildings, old, worn-out school buildings, referred to by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) earlier in the evening, and the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary know that many of those buildings, if they are to be used under this Clause, will be injurious to the health of the young persons and will not give a reasonable opportunity to the teachers to get any good results from their efforts. I think we should have some information as to the nature of the instruction and of the equipment that is to be provided for the teachers, if they are expected to get any good results from their efforts in teaching these young persons. We have had no information at all, and, frankly, I cannot help believing that no really serious consideration has been given to this question.
I heard some figures quoted by the hon. Member for Aberavon, although personally I have no information as to their accuracy, and he said that the cost per child would be £13. I presume he meant £13 per head in the centres per annum. That is a fairly heavy expenditure on instruction if that instruction is not going to be useful and efficient, and I do not think Parliament ought to be asked to sanction a scheme of this character unless we have some well-thought-out information in regard to the scheme of instruction. The adults, those over 18 years of age, are to receive training presumably, but training in what? Is it to be just going in and playing games, with a little physical exercise given by more or less efficient instructors? Are they to be taught some trade or partly taught some trade, and, if so, what trade or trades? What is to be the nature of the training? I have had several letters, as no doubt have other Members of the Committee, in regard to these training centres. There is a great deal of strong feeling among adults, many of them 20, 30, 40, and even 50 years of age, on this question. I had a letter only a few days ago from someone who tells me that he is bordering on 50, and he wants to know if he will be compelled to go to a training centre.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that this Clause deals only with people under 18.

Mr. TINKER: On a point of Order. May I refer you, Captain Bourne, to paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2), which, I think, refers to those over 18?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has overlooked the provisions of Sub-section (1), which reads:
Subject to the provisions of this Section the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, authorise the payment out of the Unemployment Fund of grants towards expenses incurred by the Minister in respect of the attendance at authorised courses of persons who have no attained the age of eighteen years and of"—
Oh yes, I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I had missed the last words. I apologise.

Mr. McENTEE: I thought you had overlooked that paragraph, Captain Bourne. It refers to attendance at training courses, which are, of course, very different from instructional centres. Over 18 years of age would include anybody over that age who was still in insurance, and I think we have a right to know just what is the nature of those training centres on which we are asked to expend public money. We have not had the slightest information except that there are to be training centres. What is a training centre?

Mr. HUDSON: That question arose in Clause 13 and was decided by the Committee. The only question that arises on this Clause is who is to pay; the extent to which the Unemployment Fund is to pay for these training courses. The setting up of the training courses and what they are to he has already been decided.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Strictly speaking, the hon. Gentleman is correct. The question of whether there are to be training courses and whether the Minister shall provide funds to deal with them has already been decided by the Committee. It is possible under the operations of the time-table that hon. Members did not have an opportunity of raising points on that subject that they would have liked to raise, but that is their misfortune. The question before the Committee now is whether the Unemployment Fund should contribute to these courses, and, if so, how much; and whether the Treasury should contribute, and, if so, how much. If the hon. Member will keep to those topics, he will be in order.

Mr. McENTEE: That was the information that I was trying to get from the Parliamentary Secretary. The operation of the time-table has prevented hon. Members from discussing fully the nature of the centres. We all know that the principle has been passed and that we are going to have these instruction courses and training centres; but, having passed it, we have now come to the stage when Parliament is going to vote money for the carrying on of those classes and training centres. Surely we have a right to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some information on how that money is to be expended. We have not had the slightest information in that regard.

Mr. HUDSON: The Committee has already sanctioned the expenditure from the Exchequer of the necessary money to run these training centres under Clause 13. The only point now is whether any contribution towards the expenditure shall be made from the fund. The total money required for the courses has already been provided for by the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct about that. The question is whether any charge should come on the Unemployment Fund, and if so, how much. Presumably, if this Clause were left out, the liability for these training courses would fall between the local authorities and the Exchequer; the moneys would be provided by Parliament and no charge would come on the Unemployment Fund. I agree with the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) that our present circumstances make it somewhat difficult to follow what points have been covered and what have not.

Mr. McENTEE: I am perfectly aware that the question of what training centres and classes shall be established has been determined already, but the question of the cost of these centres is now under discussion, and the question arises: are we to decide that a part of that cost shall be paid out of money provided by the children themselves and by adults, which goes into the general central fund? Surely I am entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, before we decide that these children shall pay for their education, what is to be the nature of the education which they are going to get.

Mr. HUDSON: I am sorry to insist on this point. We have spent a considerable time this afternoon discussing that very matter on Clause 13, and my right hon. Friend the Minister referred hon. Members in some detail to the report of the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment, which dealt specifically with the point that the hon. Member is now trying to raise again.

Mr. McENTEE: The advisory council gave advice, but it does not follow that the Minister is going to accept it. I should be very glad now if the Parliamentary Secretary would give me a specific answer to this question: Do the Government propose to follow that advice, and, if not, what is the nature of the instruction that they are going to give? The Parliamentary Secretary will not answer that question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That point is not going to be determined by this Clause. The question is: who is going to pay for it; not the amount that is going to be paid, but whether the Unemployment Fund should or should not take any part. The hon. Member might be in order in asking that the contributions provided shall be so small that they shall not be put on the Unemployment Fund.

Mr. McENTEE: All I wanted to ask was who is going to pay and for what, but apparently the Parliamentary Secretary will not tell us what is to be paid for, and consequently we have to assume that something undefined has to be paid for, something that the Parliamentary Secretary will not tell us anything about. We are therefore entitled to be very hesitant about granting the Minister the opportunity of spending money from the Unemployment Fund for things that are undefinable.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member must not say that I am unwilling to give the information. I should be wholly out of order in giving it. It is information that should have been asked for at the time.

Mr. McENTEE: I am sure that if the Parliamentary Secretary had had the desire and had made an attempt to give the information, he would not have been stopped. However, he will not give the information, and that settles it. The point I am raising is that we cannot get any information at all as to how this money is to be spent. Whatever is to be spent,
it does not appear to me to be fair that the Minister himself is to have the control of the spending. The Minister is to determine the policy, the Minister is responsible in every way for the whole management of the scheme, and he is able to determine up to a certain point what amount shall be expended from this fund. Neither the employers nor the workmen, are to have any say at all in the amount that is to be expended. It is to be subscribed in three separate sets: in part by the Minister, in part by the insured persons, and in part by the employer, but the insured persons are to have no say in the expenditure of it through any public representative; the employers are to have no say in the expenditure of it, and it is to be controlled entirely by the Minister. I want to say emphatically to the Parliamentary Secretary that many of us in many parts of the country, of all shades of political opinion, have no faith in his judgment in this matter and think that if control is to be exercised by him it is grossly unfair to the other contributors to the Insurance Fund. Further than that, the remaining part of it will have to be paid by the local authorities, and if this Clause is passed we have a right to say that the local authorities are gravely dissatisfied with the arrangements that have been made by Parliament. We are therefore asking the Government not to make those arrangements and not to give that very unfair power to the Minister.
The amount to be paid by local authorities is an undefined standard. Nobody knows, even approximately, what the amount is to be. The local authority will therefore have to pay a considerable share—that is all we can say of it—for the building, equipment and staffing of these centres, and they cannot exercise the slightest power or even the slightest influence over the expenditure or the nature of the instruction to be given. They will not be asked to judge, and they will not have any opportunity of judging whether in fact the instruction is even worth the money that they will be asked to pay, quite apart from the amount that will be spent from moneys subscribed by employers, by the children and by the Minister himself. The whole thing is extremely unfair, and I am very surprised to see that the Minister is endeavouring to exercise such power over funds that
the Government are not providing entirely from the Treasury. This money ought to have been provided by the Treasury, for the Government are responsible for policy and the local authorities are not to be responsible at all for the unemployment that causes the need for these training centres. The whole proposal is so grossly unfair that I hope the Committee will not vote in favour of it.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I rise only to ask a question for purposes of information. The Committee has already passed the Clause which provides for certain instructional courses being given and have agreed that certain sums should be expended. We are now dealing only with the allocation of the expenditure from the various sources from which it can be obtained. I have been much impressed by what was said by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) about the desirability of putting burdens upon the local authorities. I am very sensitive on that point, because I am in touch with a local authority that has had very large burdens to bear for unemployment for a great many years. I want to be clear about what would happen to the local authorities if we were to reject this Clause as we are invited to do. If I thought that by rejecting the Clause the local authorities might thereby be relieved, I should be tempted to support its rejection. As far as I can see, however, if we knock out the third source of contribution, that is to say the Unemployment Fund—and, after all, the children who contribute are in one manner or another getting some benefit from these instructional courses—if we knock out that contribution, would not the effect be to leave a larger contribution to be divided between the Minister and the local authorities, and therefore probably leave the local authorities to find the greater amount? That is what is troubling me, and I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could inform me on that subject.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID: With regard to the way in which the shares of the expenditure are to be borne by the various sources, I think I have some understanding, though not a complete one, as to
how the current expenditure is to be borne, but I am in the dark when it comes to capital expenditure. It would allay the apprehensions of some local authorities if the Parliamentary Secretary could see his way to explain how capital expenditure is to be met. Considerable sums may have to be paid for buildings and the adaptation of existing buildings. Is that money to come as a charge on the local authorities or on the fund, or in the year in which it is spent, or will only the loan charges count as expenditure during the year on these various sources of contribution? How is capital expenditure to be worked out?

9.39 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE: I would like to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary the importance of getting qualified instructors for these authorised courses. In my constituency the local education authority, which has a juvenile instruction course, has had the greatest difficulty in getting the best qualified instructors. The reason was that no arrangements had been made between the Ministry of Labour and the Minister of Education, and there were several qualified handicraft teachers who would have been willing to take on the work, but they were told that if they took it on and worked under the Minister of Labour, the time they spent in the work would not qualify for superannuation.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is too late to raise that point. It should have come on Clause 13.

Mr. LECKIE: That is the point I wanted to make, and I will not pursue it.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the information he gave me, but there is one point which he did not make clear. I refer to paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2), which refers to grants in respect of attendance at authorised training courses not exceeding 75 per cent. I have looked through the Bill, and I cannot find anything to tell us what that cost would be. The Financial Memorandum states that
a grant not exceeding 75 per cent. of the cost in respect of the attendance at such courses of persons in receipt of benefit may be made out of the Unemployment Fund.
I do not know whether the Ministry have not been able to ascertain the
figure. I canont find anything in the Bill dealing with it. As to the grant for authorised courses of instruction, which is not to exceed 50 per cent., our objection to that is that too much money is being taken out of the fund for this purpose. So far as I can see, the cost of these courses will be £850,000 and the Treasury will meet half of that, and half will come out of the Unemployment Fund. The total paid to the Unemployment Fund by the juveniles will be £500,000, and we are going to take out of that £425,000, so that we are spending practically the whole of the contributions for the courses of instruction. That is entirely wrong. This money ought not to come out of the Unemployment Fund at all, but ought to be borne by the Treasury. I agree that the courses of instruction are necessary if we cannot get the school age raised, but the burden ought not to fall on the Unemployment Fund. We cannot see any way of increasing benefits to the unemployed later while so many calls are being made upon them. This is an excessive call, and I hope that the Committee will realise what is means before they vote on it.

9.44 p.m.

Sir GEORGE GILLETT: There is a point I want to make in view of the statement of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). As far as I can see, the reason for putting the charge upon the local authorities is that they are to be responsible for running these classes. From Clause 13 I understand that the local bodies have to prepare schemes for dealing with the young people between 14 and 18. If the Minister is not satisfied with a scheme that is prepared, he can draw up a scheme and compel a local body to start these classes. If it is a fact that it is the local authorities which are going to make the final arrangements—I agree, under the supervision of the Minister—and to carry on the classes, it seems obvious to me that a portion of the expense must be borne by those local bodies, as the only, shall I say, corrective against extravagance is to throw a certain responsibility for finding the money spent upon the bodies which will have the final control in the appointment of teachers and other matters of that kind. If that be so, the money asked from the local bodies is not excessive,
and I do not quite understand why hon. Members opposite are raising opposition to the proposal. A considerable sum of money is coming from the Exchequer, and a certain amount from the Insurance Fund, and the amount finally thrown on the local authorities is the minimum that could be asked for, unless we are to take the responsibility entirely out of their hands.
I do not gather that hon. Members opposite have any objection to the local bodies having some control of these classes. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow informed the House that they had no control whatever, but I cannot see how he reconciles that statement with the provisions of Clause 13, which to my mind cannot bear any other interpretation than that the local authorities will have a very large say in the matter of these classes. I cannot help thinking that in much of the Debate this afternoon the ultimate advantage of these classes to these young persons has been, perhaps, rather exaggerated. It does not seem to be fully realised that we shall be dealing with an ever-changing body of young persons. They will not always be attending for a month or three months consecutively. At any moment one of these young persons may find employment and pass out of a class.

Mr. McENTEE: Is not the hon. Member aware that there are hundreds of thousands of children in the country who have been out of work for two or three years, and that in many districts they are not likely to have any work for years to come?

Sir G. GILLETT: If the hon. Member had listened to certain figures given at Question Time he would know that his statement that there were hundreds of thousands of young people out of employment for years was not in accordance with the facts. Such experiences are limited to certain special districts. In the case of the adult unemployed, the number who remain entirely unemployed for one year, as shown by an investigation made a year or two ago by the Ministry of Labour, is an excessively small percentage. The vast mass of the men and women out of employment is constantly changing. In London the number of young persons of from 14 to 18 who are out of employment is all the
time decreasing very rapidly. In my own Division the Employment Exchanges have told me that the problem is enormously reduced, and the number of young people out of employment in Central London is—well, the figure given for London was 1 per cent. There may be other places where the figure is very much higher, but I am talking especially of the parts I know; and in various parts of the country we shall be dealing with a shifting population of young people most of whom will go to the classes for only a very short time, and they will be exceedingly difficult classes to carry on. What we are going to provide is not instruction in the ordinary sense of the word; we are trying to find some healthy employment of an athletic or instructional nature for a longer or shorter period. This is to be done by the local authorities, and therefore a certain proportion of the charge is thrown upon them, as the only sound method of carrying on any such organisation.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to take up with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir G. Gillett) the point he has just made. He is one of the few Members who has heard this discussion from start to finish, and he will remember the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who went very closely into the question just raised. I am not so much concerned as to whether the incidence of the cost of these centres should fall upon the Exchequer or the local authorities, I am concerned that it should not fall on the Insurance Fund. When the financial proposals of the. Bill were introduced, and the local authorities found they were asked to shoulder 40 per cent. of the cost under Part II of the Bill, there was a tremendous outcry from them, particularly from distressed areas, and the case was made out, and accepted by the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the local authorities with the largest proportion of unemployed were not in a position to bear such charges. Now we ask them to shoulder an additional charge for the maintenance of these instructional centres, which again tends to throw the cost of maintaining the unemployed most heavily on to those districts which have the largest number of unemployed.
The matter is so involved that one cannot square it out by one act, but certainly on every occasion where it is possible the burden of unemployment should be spread as far as possible over the whole nation and not concentrated in particular localities or on the working-classes. If training centres for those over 18 are agreed to by the House, there may be a case for putting those centres on to the Insurance Fund, because it may be argued—though I do not accept the view—that the specialised training of those men may relieve the fund of some of its burdens. Therefore the training centres may be regarded as a legitimate charge on the fund, but the instructional centres ought not to be a charge on it, because there the problem is an educational and a social problem, and the cost should be borne by the Treasury. The hon. Member for Finsbury said that, taking the nation as a whole, this was not a very large problem, but he is looking at it very much through the eyes of a Londoner—and through the eyes of a Londoner who does not represent one of the most distressed areas. We are generally inclined to think of London as one whole, but it is not. When one considers the matter from the point of view of a city like that which I share in representing in this House, it is a very big problem indeed. If it be a small problem for the nation as a whole, if the cost of maintaining the instructional centres be such a trivial thing, our argument for putting the problem on to the Exchequer becomes all the stronger. The Treasury can shoulder this burden without any undue strain on its resources.
Discussion is going on in different quarters of the country as to how the Budget surplus is to be distributed. Income Tax-payers are on the job, and so are civil servants, and policemen, and the Prime Minister was making a plea for himself in Seaham. There are cries from the various sections, about their pressing need for a share of the Chancellor's anticipated surplus. I am afraid that I am not helping the Chancellor to any serious extent to get rid of his surplus, but I want to make a small suggestion to help him. I suggest that the National Exchequer should shoulder the full responsibility for these instructional centres, and in no niggardly fashion, so that the centres may be really bright, enjoyable places for the unemployed to
go to. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), whose speech I regret I did not hear, was, I understand, pointing out that if this Amendment and the Clause were rejected, the question of where the responsibility lies would be left rather in the air. My answer to that is that I do not think that it is necessarily the duty of an Opposition during a Committee discussion to put forward an Amendment that sets up the practical operative way of dealing with a particular Clause. If the Opposition make the case that the Government's proposal is not an acceptable one, and if the Committee reject the Government's proposal, it is for the Government to insert in their Measure a Clause that will place the incidence of cost upon the proper shoulders.
I want to say again to the hon. Member for Finsbury, who made the point that you cannot have local responsibility for the running of the centres unless the locality is to bear a share of the cost, that I know that that used to be a well-established principle which was generally observed in administration in this country, but has not that gone very much by the board? I think that it has. The administration of transitional payments during the past two years has neglected that principle entirely. Public assistance committees administer, and the central fund pays. In Part II of this Bill, the converse proposition is operating; the local authorities pay and the central authority administers. I would further point out to him—I am speaking here from very defective knowledge—that the juvenile instruction centres in existence to-day are—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—in nearly every case controlled by the local authority, while the proportion of the expense borne by local authorities varies from district to district. In some places the local authority bears no financial responsibility at all. In the City of Glasgow until very recently, although the education authority was responsible for starting a centre and providing accommodation and so on, the Ministry of Labour shouldered 100 per cent. of the cost.
My strongest argument against this Clause being operated is a very simple and direct one. As I said in the discussion upon the previous Clause, I have
no use for these faddy instructional centres. I do not see boys going down to Hell unless they go to some instructional centre for 50 hours a week, to be looked after by kindly, interfering, patronising people. I do not see boys of this country going that way at all. Leave a gang of boys with a few coppers in their pockets, and they will make their own recreational centres and debating societies. I am talking now about my own job. I have listened with all due humility to experts on a dozen different subjects in this House, and have felt how much I would like to be an expert in the things in which all the other fellows are experts. I am an expert on this; I spent most of my active teaching life dealing with boys of this type, mostly perfectly intelligent and perfectly capable. The best thing that a good teacher could do for them was to keep out of their road as much as he could. [Interruption.] An hon. Member scores a debating point over me by saying that it depends upon the teacher. There are very few teachers who have the capacity to efface themselves completely, and to allow youngsters liberty.
My fundamental reason for opposing this Clause is simple. There will be no improvement in the general conditions of relief paid to the unemployed until the fund is solvent and is showing a balance. I want to take every possible charge off the Insurance Fund which it had no right to bear, so that the fund may become solvent at the earliest possible date, and that the cuts may be restored to the fathers, mothers and dependent children. If you allow the working classes somethink like an interest, even if it is the miserable income that they had before the cuts were imposed, you can rely upon them to use that income intelligently, thriftily and to the advantage and progress of themselves and their children, without all sorts of pettifogging interferences in one direction or another. We have heard all the fine phrases about the sterling work of the British people. There are 12,000,000 of them, and a very large proportion of the adult population are in this Insurance Fund. If it is not so much hot air, when we pat ourselves on the back about the sterling qualities of our people, we should for once in a
while, allow those sterling qualities to have free play. Look after their income, and let them look after their own morals.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I am going to oppose this Clause. The Minister, in introducing the Bill, described it as social progress, and he based that description on two grounds. One was that he was putting the fund on an insurance basis, and the other was that he was providing instructional courses for juveniles. It is all very well, when introducing a Bill, for the Minister to obtain cheers by saying that the Government are doing something for the juveniles; everyone agrees that it is wise to make provision for juveniles. It is easy on the platform to obtain cheers by saying that we are going to provide instructional courses for children, so that, when they are out of employment, they will be looked after and trained. But in this Clause we come to the question as to who shall pay, and we find the real policy of the Government to be that anybody can pay, but not the Government. That has been our complaint of the Government throughout all the unemployment administration. In the case of adults, the Government say, let the family keep the unemployed. When we come to the juveniles the Government say, let the Unemployment Fund pay, Nay, worse, the Government say, let the juveniles pay. They are really asking the juveniles to pay for their instruction at the instructional centres. In the White Paper there is this statement, which clinches that argument:
The estimated income being"—
that is from the children's contributions—
£750,000, a net sum of £65,000 remains as the estimated sum to be charged against the Unemployment Fund in respect of these classes.
Therefore, they are taking the 2d. per week which the children are paying in order to pay for these instructional centres. When we were discussing the earlier Clauses of the Bill, we wondered why children were being asked to pay 2d. per week for two years and receive no benefit. We see it now. The Government decided upon that policy so that the money could be used in order to pay for these instructional centres.
I am opposed to asking the juveniles to pay for their instruction, or to asking
the Unemployment Fund to bear 50 per cent. of the expense. It is said that the total charge on the fund will be only £425,000, and that the total expenditure on the instructional courses will only be £850,000 a year; but does anyone in the House believe that the expenditure on these courses will remain at £850,000 a year? That may be the expenditure at the commencement, but one cannot imagine that two or three years hence it will remain at anything like £850,000. The Government will be bound to enter into a building scheme, and the expenditure upon buildings will increase as the years go by. They will find that they will not be able to utilise old buildings, as they are doing at the moment, but that even the pressure from the House of Commons of complaints about some of the buildings that are being used at the present time will compel them to enter into a big building programme, and, instead of the expenditure on these centres being £850,000, within a very few years we shall see it running into millions.
The Minister is restricting expenditure from the fund in other directions in order to ask the fund to pay for these juvenile instruction centres, and one also sees that for the adult training centres the fund will be called upon to pay 75 per cent. The fund will not remain for long on an insurance basis if, on the one hand, it has to pay 50 per cent. of the expenditure on the juvenile centres, and, on the other hand, 75 per cent. of the expenditure on the adult training centres. Some Members of the House were asking only a day or two ago that there should be paid out of the fund 3s. for each child instead of 2s. The Minister opposed that proposal. He would, however, have been much more justified in spending money out of the fund on increasing the children's allowances than on either juvenile centres or adult training centres. Again, the Minister has restricted the payment of benefit out of the fund to 26 weeks; it will be extremely difficult for a man to get benefit for more than 26 weeks. That is being done in order to keep the fund on an insurance basis.
Here, on the other hand, we are going to spend millions of money out of the fund, which will destroy the basis of the fund. Some of us in years gone by have complained year after year of the huge sums of money paid out of the Unemploy-
ment Insurance Fund for one purpose and another, and the House cannot be too careful, in commencing these new instructional centres and training courses, in restricting the expenditure out of the fund for these purposes. Therefore, I am strongly opposed to the adult training courses. I was rather inclined to support the training courses for juveniles, but, as the Debates have gone on, and one sees the policy of the Government, I find myself opposed to these courses both for adults and for juveniles. If any money is to be spent upon juvenile centres or adult training courses, the Government should find the money. They should not ask the Unemployment Fund to find it, and they should not ask the local authorities to bear part of the cost. If they are going to boast of what they are going to do in providing these juvenile instructional centres, they should be prepared to pay the bill.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: The Minister will probably be able to explain what we are actually being asked to do, but I cannot see bow this Clause will bring us to a definite decision. There is a vague provision to the effect that, the Treasury is to be called upon to pay some portion of the amount necessary to provide for these courses, but I see nothing giving an indication what the local authorities are to be called upon to pay and, apart from the estimates given in the pamphlet which has been issued, I see nothing indicating what proportion the Treasury is going to be called upon to pay. What I see is that the Clause says that 50 per cent. of what the Treasury is to be called upon to pay in one instance and 75 per cent. in another is being authorised by us. That may be any figure. It is impossible to say what that amount will be in any particular year or for any particular period. We do not know what the full amount is going to be, we do not know how much the Treasury is going to allot itself of that full amount, we do not know how much the local authorities are to be called upon to pay, and we do not know how much the Unemployment Fund is to be called upon to pay.
No one can deny the force of one argument of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), that we are all anxious to see the restoration of certain cuts, and we cannot see that coming forward
until we have a clear indication as to when the Insurance Fund will be free from debt. One of the points that militate against the possibility of this being realised is that which we are now considering, and we ought to consider very seriously before we agree to an indefinite Clause of this nature. Even those who agree that some portion of the Unemployment Fund might be used for this purpose cannot feel justified in voting for the Clause. Unless a very much more satisfactory explanation is given than I can find in reading the Clause, in conjunction with others, I cannot see how anyone can vote for it as it stands.

10.20 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: Before we part with the Clause, perhaps the Minister will clear up one important point. Clause 14 makes provision for the attendance at these training courses not only of insured persons but of persons who are not insured. If there is a large number of uninsured persons, it is obviously unfair to saddle the Insurance Fund with a considerable percentage of the cost. That is a point that must be made clear before we agree to the Clause.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I think that those hon. Members—there were not very many—who had the misfortune to sit through the earlier part of the Debate, will realise that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) will have no justification in future for arguing that insufficient time has been provided in the timetable for the discussion of important Amendments. Hon. Members spent the earlier part of this evening, from 8 o'clock onwards, in long speeches, which were alleged to deal with the particular Clause, but which really had hardly any bearing upon it at all.

Mr. LAWSON: Is not that a reflection upon the Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I think not. As far as my experience goes, it is quite possible that speeches may not have much bearing on a subject and yet not be altogether out of order.

Mr. HUDSON: Your predecessor would no doubt bear you out in that opinion.

Mr. BATEY: That is not fair. It is not many moments since I spoke, but I want to ask you, Sir Dennis, whether I was not in order?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may rest assured that the fact that I did not interrupt him shows that he was in order.

Mr. HUDSON: I specifically stated that it was in the early part of the Debate.

Mr. KIRKWO0D: Any insult is good enough to be thrown at this side.

Mr. HUDSON: The fact that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), after asking me to reply in detail to a number of points which he raised, had not the courtesy to remain in the House more than a few minutes after he sat down, absolves me from any necessity of having to deal with the points which he made. I may, perhaps, be allowed, as this is rather a complicated subject, to repeat—

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has spent, on the average, more time here than perhaps any hon. Member sitting in the House at the present time.

Mr. HUDSON: He asked for a specific answer to his question, and he disappeared almost immediately after he had sat down. Hon. Members will perhaps allow me to repeat the explanation of the effect of this Clause, because it is rather complicated. Now that the hon. Member for Aberavon is back in his place, perhaps he will allow me to reply to one or two of the points which he raised. He repeated a statement which I have heard before, that one of the grounds for objecting to this Clause was that contributions were being taken from the children, and that no return was being given to them for those contributions. The facts of the matter are that full return is being given to the children for those contributions. I have already stated, in connection with an earlier Clause, that we have proceeded on the general principle that it is undesirable to allow children between the ages of 14 and 16 to draw benefit and that the contributions between the ages of 14 and 16 should be regarded as building up a fund
from which they will subsequently be able to obtain benefits in the event of their becoming unemployed. The concession made by which a child will be able to draw benefit at 16 instead of at the age of 16 and 30 weeks alone absorbs £230,000 out of the £250,000 a year which the children contribute to the fund.
That is not the end of what they become entitled to, because in the event of a child becoming unemployed after it has been in insurance for five years, by virtue of the contributions which it has paid between the ages of 14 and 16 it will become entitled to additional benefit which will fully exhaust, and more than exhaust, the contributions paid in the years from 14 to 16. There is, therefore, no shadow of excuse for the statement of the hon. Member that we are taking contributions from the children and not giving them anything in return. On the contrary, as far as the children's contributions are concerned they will get all, and more than all, they have paid in, without taking any account of the cost of the junior instruction centres that we are dealing with in this Clause. I hope that I have made that point clear to the Committee. The cost of the junior instruction centres can be justified on their own merits, quite apart from any question of a return for the children's contributions, and it is purely a coincidence that the cost for the two sides of the balance sheet should have appeared together in the report on the financial effect of the Bill. The two things are not connected. The children will get full return for their contributions, quite apart from the question of the junior instruction centres.
Let me come to the change in the law. I would preface what I have to say by remarking that hon. Members opposite who have professed such indignation at the idea that any contribution should be asked for from the Unemployment Fund towards the cost of providing the junior instruction centres, would have been better advised to have addressed their argument to their own Government, because we are merely continuing the principle which was fully adopted and approved by their own Government in the existing Acts. What the present law provides is that out of the Unemployment Fund there is to be paid as a contribution 50 per cent. of the cost to the Exchequer of the junior instruction and training centres in respect of persons be-
tween the ages of 16 and 21 who are in receipt of benefit or transitional payments, or in the case of juveniles, who have been insured or are likely to follow insurable employment.
Under the existing system by which junior instruction centres are attended, as to a huge majority, by children who are entitled to benefit, no difficulty arises under the existing provisions of the law, but if we applied the existing provisions of the law to the new centres, which will be filled by large numbers of children who are unemployed and have never been insured, it is clear that the bookkeeping problem would be frightfully complicated, it having to be decided, in the case of each child, first of all, whether it was insured or not and, secondly, in the case of a child who had not paid anything at all, whether it was likely to be insured. We have therefore decided to make a change in the existing law, according to the provisions of the present Clause, by which the fund will be asked to pay 50 per cent. of the whole cost to the Exchequer.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) asked me about the 75 per cent. of the cost to be paid out of the Unemployment Fund for adults attending training courses. The present law is that adults between 18 and 21, if they are in receipt of benefit or transitional payment, attract a grant from the Unemployment Fund to the Exchequer of 50 per cent. of the cost of their training. In the past these training courses have been filled almost entirely with men who have been in receipt of benefit or transitional payments, but that will no longer be the case in the future. The authorised courses will be filled as to the majority by persons in receipt of unemployment assistance but as to the minority, by persons entitled to benefit, and it has therefore been thought fairer that the Insurance Fund should be asked to contribute 75 per cent. of the cost of these training courses only in respect of those men actually in receipt of benefit. The net result of Sub-section (2, b) will be that the cost to the fund will be decreased as compared with the cost as it exists under the present law. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. K. Griffith) asked what would be the result if Clause 15 were not passed. The Clause only makes half the change. If the hon. Member will look at Schedule
8 he will find that the existing law is repealed. If Clause 15 is not passed then I presume the Schedule would not be passed, and we should revert to the existing law, with all the complications I have explained.
Hon. Members have urged that by the provisions we are making we are inflicting a certain amount of hardship on local authorities in distressed areas. When the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill they agreed to the principle of making the local authorities partners with the State in the provision of these junior instruction centres, and there can be no doubt that local authorities stand to gain very materially by the provision of these centres, and by the results which will accrue to their inhabitants from the starting of these organisations by giving boys and girls of 14 to 16 years of age instruction instead of allowing them to play on the streets. Therefore, if we made no grant at all I still maintain, and I hope the Committee will agree with me, that the provision is on the whole a fair one, But, of course, we are giving 75 per cent. as the standard grant and there is power to make a special grant in exceptional circumstances. It may be that in rare cases we shall make a grant of less than 75 per cent., but there are certainly cases of distressed areas where we shall make a grant in excess of the 75 per cent. At all events, the 75 per cent. is in no sense a hard and fast rule. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) asked what would be the position of capital expenditure. In the future, as in the past, this will rank for grant like other expenditure; with this important exception that where the expenditure has resulted in a permanent improvement in the local authority's premises, the grant may be less than the normal full rate. This consideration will apply in the future, as it has in the past.

Mr. LOGAN: How does the Parliamentary Secretary explain Sub-section (2, b)? "shall not exceed 75 per cent." in regard to distressed areas.

Mr. HUDSON: I explained in my earlier speech that under this proposal, in the ease of juvenile instruction centres, the whole cost in the first place will be borne by the local authority, and the Exchequer will make a grant to the local authority at a particular rate, say, 75 per cent. That 75 per cent. will be made up, as to not more than 50 per cent. out of the Unemployment Fund, and as to the remainder, out of the Exchequer. In the same way, in regard to authorised courses for adults, the whole charge falls in the first place on the Exchequer, and a grant-in-aid to the Exchequer will be made out of the Unemployment Fund up to a sum not exceeding 75 per cent. of the cost in respect of those members of the insured population who are in the centre and drawing benefit. I think I have answered most of the questions that have been put to me.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I would ask one further question. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of £250,000 as being the product of what the children were to pay. Did he mean that to apply only to the children's twopences or did it include the employers' and State contributions?

Mr. HUDSON: No, the total contribution from the three bodies will amount to £760,000. The point made was as to the children's contribution, and was in reply to an hon. Member who asked about it.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 55.

Division No. 89.]
AYES.
[10.38 p m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bracken, Brendan


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Albery, Irving James
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Brass, Captain Sir William


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Broadbent, Colonel John


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bateman, A. L.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Apsley, Lord
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Burghley, Lord


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Boothby, Robert John Graham
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Borodale, Viscount
Burnett, John George


Atholl, Duchess of
Boulton, W. W.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Carver, Major William H.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jamieson, Douglas
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Clarke, Frank
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Clarry, Reginald George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Remer, John R.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Colman, N. C. D.
Ker, J. Campbell
Rickards, George William


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Conant, R. J. E.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ross, Ronald D.


Cook, Thomas A.
Knight, Holford
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cooke, Douglas
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Runge, Norah Cecil


Copeland, Ida
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Craven-Ellis, William
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leckie, J. A.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lees-Jones, John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Levy, Thomas
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, Oswald
Selley, Harry R.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Liewellin, Major John J.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Dickle, John P.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Drewe, Cedric
Mabane, William
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dunglass, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerset, Thomas


Eastwood, John Francis
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McKie, John Hamilton
Soper, Richard


Elmley, Viscount
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Maitland, Adam
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Spens, William Patrick


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Stevenson, James


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Flint, Abraham John
Meller, Sir Richard James
Stones, James


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Milne, Charles
Strauss, Edward A.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mitcheson, G. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sutcliffe, Harold


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Templeton, William P.


Gower, Sir Robert
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morgan, Robert H.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Greene, William P. C.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Grimston, R. V.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moss, Captain H. J.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Munro, Patrick
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Train, John


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Tree, Ronald


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hanbury, Cecil
North, Edward T.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nunn, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Harbord, Arthur
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hartland, George A.
Patrick, Colin M.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wells, Sydney Richard


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pearson, William G.
Weymouth, Viscount


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peat, Charles U.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Penny, Sir George
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Petherick, M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hepworth, Joseph
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pike, Cecil F.
Wise, Alfred R.


Hornby, Frank
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Womersley, Waiter James


Horobin, Ian M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton



Horsbrugh, Florence
Procter, Major Henry Adam
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lord


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Radford, E. A.
Erskine.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Berneys, Robert
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zeti'nd)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rea, Walter Russell


Cove, William G.
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Curry, A. C.
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dagger, George
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
White, Henry Graham


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause", put, agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Power to require notification of discharge from employment of persons under eighteen.)

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in page 14, line 3, to leave out "may," and insert "shall."
This is a very simple Amendment. In discussing the Clause regarding training courses and instruction centres, attention was called by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) to what he described as the very small number of children out of work, and it was pointed out then that he had no means of knowing the number of children who are out of work. We ask for this Amendment in order that we may have some gauge as to the number of children who are out of employment. The Minister himself, in inserting the Clause in the Bill, recognises that there is a difficulty of knowing when and how the children fall out of work. Why is the Minister only permitted to make regulations? We suggest that the Minister may well make up his mind now whether regulations are required or not. It is not as though there were any contingency to be cleared up before he can know whether regulations are required. We suggest that regulations are required, not so much for the insured juveniles as for the uninsured. In the future, when a juvenile falls out of employment, if he is in an insured occupation he will be obliged to report himself at the exchange, and that in itself—it may be said—enables the authority to know that that child has fallen out of employment. In the unregulated trades it is not so, and it is essential that we should have some way of gauging the number of juveniles who fall in and out of employ-
ment. How can we do so unless there is some provision of this sort requiring the employer to notify that he has discharged a juvenile? That is one reason why we want "shall" substituted for "may," in order that we may have an indication of the number of juveniles who fall out of work.
Moreover, juveniles who are in uninsured trades are to be permitted to apply to the new Assistance Board. If that new board is going to give assistance to juveniles in unregulated trades, it ought to put pressure on those juveniles to attend the classes. How can it do so if there is no way of knowing when a juvenile becomes unemployed? If the employers were obliged to report when they discharged a juvenile, then it would be possible for those in charge of an instruction centre and courses for juveniles to get into touch with the young person, whether he is in an insured or an uninsured trade. Are we to take it that young people, as for example in agriculture, an uninsured trade, do not require vocational instruction during periods of unemployment just as much as children in any insured trade? I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment. I see no reason why the matter should be uncertain. The House of Commons should be able to decide whether Parliament should or should not require the report; that, we suggest, would save the Minister from being perplexed by the importunities of employers.

10.54 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I hope very much that the Minister will accept this Amendment. I should like to remind him that there are 500,000 juveniles in unregulated trades; also that there are 200,000 in
shops, and all hon. Members know that the hours of work in shops are 74 a week. [Interruption.] Hon. Members ought to know all about these things. I hope also that the Minister can assure us that, if he is not going to accept this Amendment, he and the Government will do something about these children in unregulated trades. Many of us would then support the Government with great fervour. I know that the Minister has got the idea at last, and that this Committee has got it at last, although at this time of night it is very difficult to get anything over to the Committee. I am not referring to anything except the hour. The Minister knows the appalling conditions of some of these children in unregulated trades. If hon. Members read the Fourth Report of the National Advisory Committee on Juvenile Employment they will agree that it is our duty as a legislature to do something to protect the most unprotected of all workers in this country, particularly as they belong to the poorest parents. Out of 50,000 errand boys in London between the ages of 14 and 18, only 25 per cent. have any chance of getting any time off to play or to get instruction. That is only one case, and I could give the Minister thousands.

10.56 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I might remind my Noble Friend that the point is not with regard to unregulated workers, but uninsured workers.

Viscountess ASTOR: The unregulated are not insured.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I want to say clearly that it is the intention of the Government at once to make regulations to deal with the insured class. We shall make regulations for the uninsured class as soon as we can. The regulations for the insured persons present no difficulty, and we can make them at once, because there are books which enable us to trace them and to deal with them. It is not our intention that the uninsured boys and girls who have no books should slip through our hands and not be subject to the requirement to attend courses of instruction. We shall,
before the regulations are made, take every possible precaution through school attendance officers and others, to see that they, too, are subject to the requirement. But I cannot say at the moment that regulations in respect of them will be made at the same time as regulations for the insured boys and girls, because the effect of that might be to hang up for a considerable period that which I want to do at once, namely, to make regulations for the insured boys and girls. With that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. CAP0RN: In dealing with the regulations to be made under Clause 11 the Minister gave an undertaking that he would consider the possibility of introducing a provision in the Report stage whereby they should not have effect until approved by the House. Will that apply to the regulations under this Clause?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The answer is in the negative.

10.59 p.m.

Mr.BUCHANAN: This issue raises other issues as well, and I wish there were time to debate them. This issue cannot be taken by itself, but must be co-related to the Bill so far as it deals with juveniles. Under a certain Clause of the Bill the Government have taken power to punish parents and the children if the latter do not attend these courses, not only by withholding their benefit, but by making it a penal offence. If we had time to debate this Clause, we would show that it must be viewed with great suspicion, and I wish the Minister had time to tell us what is the penal offence if a boy refuses to attend and what is the nature of the penalty. My hon. Friend and I intend to divide against the Clause.

It being Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on
any Amendments moved by the Government of which Notice had been given and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Eleven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendments made: In page 14, line 4, leave out from "employers," to "any," in line 5, and insert "when."

In line 8, at the end, add:
leaves their employment to give notice thereof to the Minister in the prescribed manner."—[Sir H. Betterton.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 307; Noes, 40.

Division No. 90.]
AYES.
[11.1 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Drewe, Cedric
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Albery, Irving James
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Dunglass, Lord
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Eastwood, John Francis
Ker, J Campbell


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Apsley, Lord
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Elmley, Viscount
Knight. Holford


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Law, Sir Alfred


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Law, Richard K. (Hull. S. W.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Leckie, J. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lees-Jones, John


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Levy, Thomas


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lewis, Oswald


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fermoy, Lord
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bateman, A. L.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Liewellin, Major John J.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Flint, Abraham John
Locker- Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Fraser, Captain Ian
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Borodale, Viscount
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Bossom, A: C.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Boulton, W. W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mabane, William


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bracken, Brendan
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gower, Sir Robert
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graves, Marjorie
McKie, John Hamilton


Burghley, Lord
Greene, William P. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Burnett, John George
Grimston, R. V.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Maitland, Adam


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Martin, Thomas B.


Carver, Major William H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hanbury, Cecil
Meller, Sir Richard James


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, Charles


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Harris, Sir Percy
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Clarke, Frank
Hartland, George A.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Clarry, Reginald George
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Colfox, Major William Philip
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Colman, N. C. D.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morgan, Robert H.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Cook, Thomas A.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Cooke, Douglas
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hepworth, Joseph
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Copeland, Ida
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Munro, Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Craven-Ellis, William
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hornby, Frank
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Crooke, J. Smedley
Horobin, Ian M.
North, Edward T.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Nunn, William


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Cross, R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Patrick, Colin M.


Curry, A. C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Pearson, William G.


Dawson, Sir Philip
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Peat, Charles U.


Dickle, John P.
Jamieson, Douglas
Penny, Sir George


Donner, P. W.
Janner, Barnett
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Petherick, M.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Savory, Samuel Servington
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Salley, Harry R.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Pike, Cecil F
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Train, John


Pybus, Sir Percy John
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tree, Ronald


Radford, E. A.
Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-In-F.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Somerset, Thomas
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Somervell, Sir Donald
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Soper, Richard
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Rea, Walter Russell
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Spens, William Patrick
White, Henry Graham


Remer, John R
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Rickards, George William
Stevenson, James
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stones, James
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Ross, Ronald D.
Storey, Samuel
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wise, Alfred R.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Strauss, Edward A.
Womersley, Walter James


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-



Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffleld, B'tside)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Sutcliffe, Harold
and Lord Erskine.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thomas, James P. L (Hereford)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leonard, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. John.

The CHAIRMAN then left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.